Sameer Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15030 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-332 Year-2025 Thana- BAGHA District- West Champaran ====================================================== 1.
Sameer Kumar S/o Madan Prasad Gupta @ Madan Prasad R/o Vill- Ward No 02, Malkauli Bagaha, P.S.- Bagaha, District- West Champaran 2.
Rohit Kumar Gupta @ Rohit Kumar S/o Madan Prasad Gupta @ Madan Prasad R/o Vill- Ward No 02, Malkauli Bagaha, P.S.- Bagaha, District- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Umesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 24-03-2026
1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, after some arguments, seeks permission to withdraw the prayer for anticipatory bail with respect to petitioner no. 2, namely, Rohit Kumar Gupta @ Rohit Kumar.
2. Permission is accorded.
3. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail with respect to petitioner no. 2 is dismissed as withdrawn.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner no. 1, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
5. The petitioner no. 1 apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 333, 117(2), 78(ii), 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.
2/4
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner no. 1 submits that petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges that Rohit and petitioner no. 1 were staying on rent in his house and were doing courier business. Further, Rohit took inappropriate photo of the sister of the informant and also made video and started pressurizing her. Further, her marriage was fixed when Rohit started threatening and even sent messages to his relatives. Further, on 26.10.2025, Rohit along with petitioner no. 1, Gautam and 8-10 unknown accused came to his house and started threatening and when Utkarsh objected, the accused persons assaulted him causing fracture of his right hand. Further, on account of the fact that the occurrence does not come to light efforts were being made to resolve the issue but the same could not be resolved and the marriage proposal of the sister of the informant broke-up causing loss of face of the informant and his family in the society.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner no. 1 submits that from perusal of the FIR, it would manifest that the date of occurrence is 26.10.2025 and the FIR came to be instituted on 02.12.2025 i.e. after a delay of 37 days of the occurrence on which learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that the reason for the delay has been assigned in the
3/4 FIR as the informant alleges that since the occurrence involved his sister, as such, the family did not want that the same should come in the knowledge of the society, hence, efforts were being made to resolve the issue but when the issue was not resolved the informant had no option but to institute the instant FIR on which learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner no. 1 submits that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR it would manifest that thrust of the allegation is against Rohit and since the petitioner no. 1 was staying with Rohit, as such, he also came to be implicated. It is further submitted that no doubt, Utkarsh suffered grievous injury but then allegation of assault is not specific. It is reiterated and submitted that thrust of the allegation is against Rohit.
8. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner no. 1.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, let the petitioner no. 1, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case is pending/Successor Court in connection with Bagaha P.S. Case
4/4 No. 332 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T