Nagina Singh @ Nageena Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9858 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-244 Year-2024 Thana- KATEYA District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Nagina Singh @ Nageena Singh S/o Late Mangal Singh R/o Village - Rup Poiya, P.S - Kateya, District - Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Binod Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ramchandra Sahni Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 18-02-2026
1. Heard the parties.
2. This is second anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner who apprehends his arrest in connection with Kateya P.S. Case No. 244 / 2024 dt: 25.06.2024 registered for the offence under Section 341, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506, 34 of the I.P.C.
3. As per the first information report the petitioner assaulted the father of the informant on his head by means of 'lathi' leading to head injury.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this inasmuch as he has not committed any offence in the manner alleged. He further submits that the occurrence took place on 23.06.2024 whereas the F.I.R. was lodged after two days delay on 25.06.2024
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9858 of 2026(2) dt.18-02-2026 2/2 without any plausible explanation. He also submits that both the parties are next door neighbours and there is admitted land dispute between the parties. There is case and counter case between the parties inasmuch as the petitioner has earlier lodged Kateya P.S. Case No. 242 of 2024 against the informant's brother and others. He next submits that both the parties have compromised the matter and a compromise petition has already been filed in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, Gopalganj.
5. Having considered the submissions advanced by the petitioner, taking into account the fact that petitioner tried to argue the matter afresh on certain grounds and this Court at the time of hearing of first anticipatory bail application vide Cr. Misc. No. 84433 of 2024 permitted the petitioner to withdraw his application for anticipatory bail, as such, I am not inclined to entertain the second anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner on certain grounds placed for the second time. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) praful/- U T