Vivekanad Sharma @ Viveka Kumar @ Bunty v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35011 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-361 Year-2025 Thana- PATNA CITY CHOWK District- Patna ====================================================== Vivekanad sharma @ Viveka kumar @ Bunty Son of Jitendra Mistry Resident of Village- Dharmpur, P.S.- Kako, Jehanabad, District- Jehanabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mrs. Yerra Madhavi, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Binod Kumar No.3, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 27-07-2026 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Chowk P.S. Case No. 361/ 2025 registered for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 115(2), 126(2), 109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.

3. As per the prosecution story, while the informant was sitting at the entrance of her house, the accused persons, including the petitioner, armed with lathi, bricks and stones came and started abusing, on objection, this petitioner assaulted the informant by means of brick as a result of which she sustained head injury and became unconscious.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner happens to be grand son of the informant and on the alleged date of the occurrence there was a land dispute pending

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35011 of 2026(3) dt.27-07-2026 2/2 in between the parties who are family members. The informant sustained simple injury and the land dispute is said to be the genesis of the occurrence. It is further submitted that petitioner is not alleged to have assaulted the informant repeatedly and only one assault by using brick is alleged to have been made by him and the petitioner bears no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP appearing for the State opposes the prayer of the petitioner.

6. Heard both the sides and perused the FIR and case diary of this case. Though, the informant sustained simple injury and land dispute is said to be genesis of the occurrence and both the parties are close relatives but considering the nature of allegation which shows that the petitioner assaulted his own grand mother causing head injury to her and the case is under investigation, in my opinion, the petitioner does not deserve to the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his prayer stands rejected.

(Shailendra Singh, J) BKS/- U T