Ramashankar Sah v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27574 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-44 Year-2026 Thana- BYPASS District- Patna ====================================================== Ramashankar Sah Son of Late Jagpati Sah Resident of village - Jamua, P.O.and P.S.-Bihiyan,, District-Bhojpur. At present resident of Maharani Colony, Agamkuan Road No.1, P.S.- Bypass, District-Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bibhakar Tiwary, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Arvind Kumar Mouar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 29-04-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Bypass P.S. Case no.44 of 2026 registered under sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is said to have assaulted the informant with an iron rod on his head. Other accused persons are also said to have assaulted causing serious injuries.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who is a specially enabled person has been falsely implicated in the case. With respect to an occurrence which has taken place on 27.1.2026, without any reasonable explanation

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27574 of 2026(2) dt.29-04-2026 2/2 for the delay, statement before the police was given on 31.1.2026 and the FIR registered on 5.2.2026. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and undertakes to cooperate in the investigation.

5. The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by learned A.P.P for the State and learned counsel for the informant. It is submitted by learned counsel for the informant that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of having assaulted the informant with an iron rod. Referring to the order of the learned trial Court, it is submitted that as a result of the assault on the informant, he sustained multiple grievous injuries.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner in the F.I.R. together with the injury report of the informant having been mentioned in paragraph no.52 of the case diary which finds mention in the order of the learned trial Court of the informant having sustained corresponding multiple grievous injuries, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail and the application is rejected. (Partha Sarthy, J) sauravkrsinha/- U T