Anish Dubey @ Ugrabadi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28738 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-215 Year-2024 Thana- MAIRWAN District- Siwan ====================================================== Anish Dubey @ Ugrabadi S/o Shankarji Dubey R/o Vill.- Sajana Makariyar , P.S.- Mairwan, Distt.- Siwan ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar For the State :

Mr. Nagendra Prasad For the Informant :

Mr. Ajay Kr. Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 06-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as informant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is seeking regular bail in connection with Mairwa P.S. Case No. 215 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 109, 191(2), 190, 61(2) of the BNS.

3. As per the prosecution story, the specific allegation against the petitioner is that he inflicted tangi blow on the head of the informant's husband due to which he succumbed to injuries.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He has further submitted that the allegation against the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28738 of 2025(5) dt.06-01-2026 2/2 petitioner is that he inflicted tangi blow on the head of the deceased but no injury was found on the head of the deceased. Learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner is a person of clean antecedent and is in custody since 29.10.2024.

5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner by submitting that the postmortem report shows that the bleeding from nostril of the deceased, was caused due to infliction of tangi blow on his head and the petitioner is the main assailant in the present case.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail. Accordingly, it is rejected.

7. The learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) priyanka/- U T