Patna High CourtCR. MISC./11973/2026bail rejected

Pandav Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

2026-04-29Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11973 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-271 Year-2025 Thana- MANSI District- Khagaria ====================================================== Pandav Mandal S/o- Anup Mandal Village- Saidpur, Ward no.1, P.S. Mansi, Distt.- Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Gulnar Begum, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 29-04-2026 Heard Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with Mansi P.S. Case No. 271 of 2025 instituted under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 352, 75, 3(5) of BNS and Section 27 of Arms Act lodged on 02.12.2025 by the informant Raghni Devi.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that the accused persons including the petitioner came, armed variously and thereafter the allegation against this petitioner is of opening fire causing the injury on the head of the husband of the informant. The allegation of assault is on others too. The reason is that the informant's husband refused to work as labour in the filed which infuriated the accused persons. This led to the F.I.R.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11973 of 2026(3) dt.29-04-2026 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that different statements have been made by the informant as also the family members as reflected from the case diary.

5. However, Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned APP has taken this Court to the injury report to show that the injury sustained by the husband of the informant has found to be grievous in nature.

6. Considering the allegation that has come against the petitioner and on perusal of the injury report, this Court is of the opinion that no case of anticipatory bail is made out.

7. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail is rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Abhishek/- U T