Sudhir Kumar @ Sudhir Prasad v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4339 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-467 Year-2024 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya ====================================================== Sudhir Kumar @ Sudhir Prasad Son of Shiv Prasad R/O Village- Sobh, P.S.- Barachatti, Distt.- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 05-05-2026 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Barachatti Police Station Case No. 467 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115, 76 352 and 351(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that on 20.08.2024, when the informant was cutting grass and was alone, the petitioner came and caught her from behind with bad intention, due to which her clothes were disarranged. However, she managed to free herself and ran away, but the petitioner again caught her, resulting in her blouse being torn. When she objected, the petitioner assaulted her with a khanti, causing injuries. Thereafter, when her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4339 of 2026(4) dt.05-05-2026 2/3 family members arrived, the petitioner fled from the place of occurrence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to ulterior motives. There is an unexplained delay of about two months in lodging the FIR. The injury is simple in nature. During investigation, independent witnesses have stated that there was a prior relationship and monetary dispute between the parties, and the present case has been lodged due to a dispute arising out of demand of money. Earlier supervisory note did not find the case true, however, on the same material, a subsequent direction was issued for arrest. The petitioner is having clean antecedent and no case is made out against him.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submits that there is prima facie material against the petitioner, who is alleged to have taken advantage of the informant being alone and attempted to outrage her modesty.
6. Considering the nature of the allegation and the materials available on record, including the supervision note, wherein prima facie case against the petitioner has been found by the police, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4339 of 2026(4) dt.05-05-2026 3/3 privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail rejected. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) Siwani/- U T