Md. Faiyaz @ Faiyaz v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9992 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-284 Year-2025 Thana- SABAUR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Md. Faiyaz @ Faiyaz Son of Md. Jakir Resident of Bansi Tikar, Police Station - Sabour, District - Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Md.Najmul Hodda, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER 21-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sabour P.S. Case No. 284 of 2025 dated 09.08.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 190, 191(2), 76, 351(2) and 352 of the B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has alleged that the named accused persons including the petitioner had assaulted her husband and her father-in-law by means of a knife and rod. It has been alleged that when one Md. Maqbool came to their rescue, the other accused persons assaulted him with a rod, causing severe injury to his backbone.
2/4
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in a concocted case. It has further been submitted that the present case is a counter blast to the earlier F.I.R. lodged on behalf of the petitioner's side being Sabour P.S. Case No. 281 of 2025 dated 07.08.2025. It has further been submitted that the present F.I.R. was lodged on 09.08.2025 with a false and concocted story which can be ascertained from perusal of the injury report of Md. Junaid, to whom it is said that the petitioner assautled. Upon examination, two lacerated wounds over left parieto-temporal region of scalp were found and the opinion was initially reserved however, after the radiological report, the said injury was found to be simple in nature. It has been submitted that no bony fracture was found on the person of the injured, Md. Makbool to whom, however, the allegation is against the other accused persons of assault. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedent.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the parties and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the
3/4 Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Sabour P.S. Case No. 284 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2) of BNSS as well as subject to the following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present before the concerned Court on each and every date of the trial and shall cooperate in the investigation.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned. (iv) The trial court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedents, the trial court shall take necessary steps for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bond in terms of the
4/4 above mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
7. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J) Gautam/- U T