Pushpa Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3791 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-555 Year-2025 Thana- MAHARAJGANJ District- Siwan ====================================================== 1.
Pushpa Devi W/O Surendra Singh Resident of village- Pokhra, P.s.- Maharajganj, District- Siwan, Bihar 2.
Surendra Singh S/O Late Rambilash Singh Resident of village- Pokhra, P.S.- Maharajganj, District- Siwan, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Prabhakar Singh, Mr. Sumit Kumar, Ms. Ritika Kumarik Advocates.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Awadhesh Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 20-02-2026 Heard Mr. Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned APP for the State.
2. This application for grant of anticipatory bail arises out of Maharajganj Police Station Case No. 555 of 2025 dated 17.11.2025, disclosing the offence under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1) 303(2), 109(1), 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the BNS lodged by the informant, Laxman Singh.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant alleged that these petitioners along with others came to his copy factory armed with rod, farsa, sword etc, and started hurling abuses. Surendra Singh (petitioner no.2) along with one Aman Kumar
2/4 caught hold of hair of the informant and petitioner no.1 with one Kirti Kumari assaulted on his head by means of rod. When son of the informant came to his rescue, he was also beaten by means of Lathi. Accordingly, the present FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and they have falsely been implicated in this case on basis of land disputed between the parties and both the parties are agnates/Pattidar. There is a counter version to the entire incident being Maharajganj PS Case No. 556/2026, which is said to have been lodged by the petitioner's side. It has next been submitted that both the sides have receive injuries, insofar as the injuries which are said to have been sustained by the informant and his son are concerned, they are simple in nature.
5. On the other hand, learned APP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that nothing specific allegation of overt-act has been alleged against these petitioners, both the parties are agnates, there is case and counter case between the parties, injuries caused to the informant and his son are simple in nature and the petitioners
3/4 have also sustained injuries, this Court is inclined to grant the petitioners the privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. This application for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, allowed.
8. Let the petitioners, named above, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Siwan in connection with aforesaid Police Station Case subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the B.N.S.S. 2023, as well as the following conditions:- (i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in
4/4 no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail (iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his/her bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J) perwez U T