Md. Nizamuddin @ Pintu @ Nizamuddin v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30962 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2026 Thana- LALIT NARAYAN UNIVERSITY DistrictDarbhanga ====================================================== 1.
Md. Nizamuddin @ Pintu @ Nizamuddin S/O Late Md Salauddin @ Late Salauddin R/o Mohalla- Kaidrabad, Lal Masjid, P.S.- L.N.M.U., DistrictDarbhanga 2.
Md. Kamruddin Ansari @ Chaman @ Kamruddin S/O Late Md Salauddin @ Late Salauddin R/o Mohalla- Kaidrabad, Lal Masjid, P.S.- L.N.M.U., District-Darbhanga ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Kanchan Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 15-07-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the informant and the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with L.N.M.U. P.S. Case No. 07 of 2026, for allegedly having committed offence under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.
3. As per the prosecution story, which has been lodged on the basis of the written report submitted by the informant to the effect, that while the informant was getting his boundary wall constructed on his private land near the house,
2/4 the accused person, including the petitioners reached there armed with iron rod, stick and farsa and started abusing the informant and directed him to stop the work. When the informant objected, co-accused Md. Salauddin ordered to kill him. On the direction given by co-accused Md. Salauddin, petitioner no.1 assaulted the informant on his head with a farsa, due to which he fell down on the ground and became unconscious. When the niece of the informant and one of the relatives, namely Sajjad Ansari came to save him, co-accused persons assaulted them with fists and slaps and also snatched a gold chain worth Rs. 50,000/- from her neck. It has further been submitted that the petitioner no.2 assaulted Sajjad Ansari with an iron rod on his head which caused injuries and he also took Rs. 5,000/- from his pocket.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any offence, rather the first information report has been lodged only with a view to harass the petitioners. He further submits that the allegation against the petitioner no.1 is that he hit on the head of the informant with Farsa, however no such injury has been found and injury, if any has been caused by hard and blunt object. He further submits that all the injuries have been found
3/4 to be simple in nature by the treating doctor. He further submits that the petitioners have got a clean antecedent.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submits that both the petitioners assaulted on the vital part of the body of the informant and Sajjad Ansari, due to which they sustained multiple injuries and were taken to hospital. He further submits that the doctor has found the injuries to be on the vital part of the body.
6. The learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submits that allegation of assault is there against the petitioners and the same is on the vital part of the body, therefore, they do not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. Having heard the rival submissions, after going through the records and after going through the case diary, it appears that in paragraph no. 48, the injuries of the informant has been mentioned. From perusal thereof, it would transpire that two injuries were found by the treating doctor, however the same have been opined to be simple in nature. Further, the petitioners have got a clean antecedent. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioners, above named,
4/4 in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Darbhanga in connection with L.N.M.U. P.S. Case No. 07 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., with further condition:
(1) The learned Court concerned shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedents, the court concerned shall take steps for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. 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. (Ritesh Kumar, J) AjayMishra/- U T