Sanjay Kumar Jha @ Sanjay Jha v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7222 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-102 Year-2025 Thana- KARPURIGRAM District- Samastipur ====================================================== 1.
Sanjay Kumar Jha @ Sanjay Jha S/o Laxmikant Jha Resident of VillageBishanpur, PS- Karpuri Gram, Distt.- Samastipur 2.
Raman Kumar Jha @ Raman Kumar @ Shooter S/o Naveen Kumar Jha Resident of Village- Bishanpur, PS- Karpuri Gram, Distt.- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Udit Narayan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ahmad Ali, APP For the informant :
Ms. Sonia Narayan Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 01-04-2026 Heard Mr.Udit Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Sonia Narayan Sinha, learned counsel for the informant beside the learned APP.
2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in connection with Α.Β.Ρ. No.3154/2025 arising out of Karpuri Gram P.S. Case No.102/2025 U/s 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 109(1), 351(2) and 352 B.N.S. lodged on 10.09.2025 by the informant, Binod Jha.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that while he was sitting at his door, all the accused persons armed variously wanted him to vacate the house. Upon protest, the allegation is that firstly Raman Kumar Jha gave sword blow
2/4 on the head which followed Sanjay Kumar Jha assaulting by iron rod on the neck. Navin Kumar Jha (not before this Court) climbed on his chest and pressed leading to blood oozing out from his nose and mouth. Allegation of assault on the other part has also been alleged. He was shifted to Sadar Hospital, Samastipur which followed the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that there is land dispute between the parties, a minor dispute took place which has been exaggerated which can be reflected from the fact that a single injury of 3cm cut has been found on the forehead and the Doctor has opined it to be simple in nature.
5. Learned counsel for the informant on the other hand has taken this Court to the FIR to show that not only assault took place, one of the accused namely Navin Kumar Jha climbed on the chest of the informant with intention to kill him.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the parties as also the fact that the injury inflicted has been found to be simple in nature and the petitioners do not have criminal antecedent, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend them the privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. Let the petitioners be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the concerned court within a
3/4 period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Α.Β.Ρ. No.3154/2025 arising out of Karpuri Gram P.S. Case No.102/2025 to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class cum Additional Munsif, Samastipur subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as also the other conditions.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family member/relative of the petitioners who shall provide official document (Aadhar Card/Driving License/Voter ID/Pan Card etc.) to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) The petitioners shall be appearing before the police station as and when required for cooperating in the investigation;
(iii) the petitioners 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 their bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iv) the petitioners shall appear before the concerned police station every fortnight for next six months to mark their attendance and at the end of the period a certificate be submitted
4/4 before the Trial Court failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of bail bonds; (v) the petitioners shall in 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 bonds;
(vi) the petitioners shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds. (Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U T