Md. Sohail v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31211 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2025 Thana- Bhittha District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Md. Sohail Son of Md. Jahangir Resident of village - Bhemua, P.S.- Bhitha, 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 :
Ms. Renu Kumari, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Zaki Haider, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 12-05-2026 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Zaki Haider, learned counsel for the informant and Ms. Renu Kumari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 18.12.2025 in connection with Bhitha P.S. Case No. 98 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 15.12.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, over a petty dispute, this petitioner by means of bamboo assaulted to the father of the informant due to which he received injuries.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31211 of 2026(2) dt.12-05-2026 2/3 petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. It appears from the FIR that due to some petty dispute the present occurrence has taken place. As per the allegation in the FIR, this petitioner has assaulted to the father of the infomrant by means of bamboo due to which he received injury and injury report of the injured person suggest that the injury is greivous in nature but there is no intention to kill anyone and there is no repetition of assault. He further submits that the date of occurrence as alleged in the FIR is 20.11.2025 but the present FIR has been instituted on 15.12.2025 i.e., after delay of about 25 days without giving any explanation of the said delay only to falsely implicate the petitioner. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 18.12.2025.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM, Pupri at Sitamarhi in connection with Bhitha P.S. Case No. 98 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31211 of 2026(2) dt.12-05-2026 3/3 2025, subject to the following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T