Patna High CourtCR. MISC./3404/2026bail granted

Arun Mehta v. The State Of Bihar

2026-01-30Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3404 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-99 Year-2025 Thana- Mufassil District- Purnia ====================================================== Arun Mehta S/O Jagdish Mehta @ Jagadish Mehta R/O Village- Chandi Kathwa, P.S- Mufassil, Distt.- Purnea.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Vinod Shanker Modi, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 30-01-2026 Heard Mr. Bipin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Vinod Shanker Modi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 19.10.2025 in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 99 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 07.07.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 126(2), 118(1), 109, 352, 303(2) and 351(2) of the B.N.S.

3. According to prosecution case, the petitioner and other co-accused persons are alleged to have abused and assaulted the informant's husband by means of spade causing head injury. Allegation against the petitioner and co-accused are of giving dabiya blow to the husband of the informant on his eye, leg due to which he sustained cut injury.

2/4

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that the allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. From bare perusal of F.I.R., it appears that due to some petty dispute, the present occurrence has taken place and there is case and counter case between the parties. Although, the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and the specific allegation against the petitioner is that he along with one Suman Kumar have assaulted the husband of the informant on his leg.

He further submits that due to present occurrence, both sides have received injuries and it appears from the injury report of the husband of the informant namely, Parmanand Mehta suggests that the second number of injury inflicted by the petitioner is found to be simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance and the police after investigation, submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 19.10.2025.

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner carries two more cases other than the present one but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph 3 of the bail petition

3/4 that the petitioner is on bail in both the cases.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also the fact that there is case and counter case between the parties and the injury inflicted upon the husband of the informant is found to be simple in nature, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purnea/appropriate court below in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 99 of 2025, with the following conditions: i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for

4/4 cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Ranjeet/- U T