Gajendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37436 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2025 Thana- DOBHI District- Gaya ====================================================== Gajendra Kumar Son of Munilal Sao @ Munni Lal Saw Resident of VillageBhawanichak, P.S.- Kalpa (Jehanabad), District- Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Yogendra Tiwari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-06-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 105 of the BNS, 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that his son (Sandeep) worked in Dobhi Power Grid as Line Man and on 08.03.2025 at 06:45 AM, his son got electric shock and fell from the pole on account of which he sustained injury on head and died, further alleges that his son had dispute with the Junior Engineer of Dobhi Power Grid who was involved in the occurrence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37436 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026 2/3 petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that son of the informant was working as a Line Man and had climbed the electric pole on account of which, he sustained shock and fell due to which he sustained injury on head leading to death. It is also submitted that apart from suspicion, nothing concrete is alleged against the petitioner. It is further submitted that petitioner had not acceded to the demand of the informant for a higher compensation and that might be also a reason for implicating him based on suspicion. It is next submitted that petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove his innocence.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37436 of 2026(2) dt.18-06-2026 3/3 with Dobhi P.S. Case No. 61 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of BNSS.
7. However, it is made clear that in the event if the Investigating Officer of the case files an application before the learned Trial Court bringing to its notice that petitioner despite giving assurance to this Court is not co-operating in the investigation, in that event the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned police station through the learned Trial Court.
9. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T