Mohd. Arman @ Mohd. Arman Ansari @ Arman v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26906 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2025 Thana- Mehsoul District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Mohd. Arman @ Mohd. Arman Ansari @ Arman Son of Md. Taslim Ansari @ Taslim Ansari Resident of Village - Rajopatti (Chak Mahila), Ansari Road, P.S.- Mehsaul, District - Sitamarhi.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 22-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with Mehsaul P.S. Case No. 78 of 2025 lodged on 08.07.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 126, 115(2), 118, 109, 352, 351 (2) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the Court of C.J.M., Sitamarhi.

3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against 11 named accused persons including the present petitioner and 10-12 unknown persons with allegation that they have assaulted the informant and his brother, due to which, they sustained injuries. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has assaulted the informant by knife on his back.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26906 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026 2/2 submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that the injuries are on non-vital part of the body. Counsel also submits that the petitioner's side and the informant's side are resident of the same locality. He further submits that the criminal antecedent of the petitioner is not clean as there is one case pending against him.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that as per the FIR, there is specific allegation against the petitioner to assault the informant.

6. As such, in the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

7. However, if petitioner surrenders before the concerned Trial Court within a period of 4 weeks from today then in that case, the Trial Court is directed to pass order on his surrender-cum-bail application on the same day, without being prejudice that the anticipatory bail of the petitioner has been rejected by this Court and the Trial Court shall pass order on the merit of this case.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Divyansh/- U T