Sanjeet Lal Dev @ Sanjeet Kumar Dev @Sanjit Lal Dev @ Sangit Lal Dev@ Sangit Kumar Dev v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37437 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-345 Year-2025 Thana- BAHERI District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Sanjeet lal Dev @ Sanjeet Kumar Dev @Sanjit Lal Dev @ Sangit Lal Dev@ Sangit Kumar Dev Son Of Ranjit Lal Dev @ Ranjeet Lal Dev@ Bhikhari Lal Dev R/O Vill.- Ujjana, P.S- Baheri,Dist- Darbhanga (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anuranjan Patel, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 16-06-2026 Heard Mr. Anuranjan Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 05.03.2026, in connection with Baheri P.S. Case No. 345 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 21.08.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 74, 303(2), 351(2), 352, 3(5) of the B.N.S. and later Section 103(1) of the B.N.S. was added.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that while she was returning to her Sasural along with her husband, seven to eight accused persons including the petitioner stopped them. It is stated that they were abused, assaulted and

2/4 threatened. The accused petitioner took away her mangalsutra, mobile phone and purse and the accused persons threatened that the occurrence should not be disclosed to anyone. Subsequently, it is stated that a panchayati was held. Further allegation is that accused Lelin Lal Dev struck with an iron rod on the head of the Mithilkesh causing injuries.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It appears fromk the F.I.R. itself that due to some petty dispute the present occurrence had taken place. Although, the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. but there is no specific allegation of any assault or overt act attributed against the petitioner rather there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner and for the same set of allegation co-accused person, namely, Nitish Kumar Laldev @ Nitesh Lal Dev @ Nitish Lal Deo has been granted regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.02.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 7939 of 2026. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 05.03.2026..

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

3/4 State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Darbhanga in connection with Baheri P.S. Case No. 345 of 2025, subject to the following conditions :-

(1) 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.

(2) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(3) 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 antecedents, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the

4/4 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) Ibrar//- U T