Sanjay Mahto @ Sanjay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40588 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-360 Year-2025 Thana- ROSERA District- Samastipur ====================================================== 1.

Sanjay Mahto @ Sanjay Kumar S/O Raja Ram Mahto R/O Vill.- Bhirha, Ward no. 10, P.S.- Rosera, Dist.- Samastipur. 2.

Ankit Mahto @ Ankit Kumar S/O Raja Ram Mahto R/O Vill.- Bhirha, Ward no. 10, P.S.- Rosera, Dist.- Samastipur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sadanand Roy For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Satyendra Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-07-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners, after some argument, seeks permission to withdraw the present anticipatory bail application with respect to petitioner no.1, namely, Sanjay Mahto @ Sanjay Kumar.

3. Permission is accorded.

4. Accordingly, instant petition is dismissed as withdrawn with respect to petitioner no.1, namely, Sanjay Mahto @ Sanjay Kumar.

5. The petitioner no.2 seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40588 of 2026(2) dt.06-07-2026 2/3 Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that on 22.10.2025 at 5.00 PM, four named accused persons including the petitioner came to his house and demanded urea from his brother, on which his brother disclosed that urea is not available, thereafter Sanjay assaulted his brother Nakul by an iron rod causing injury on head, on account of which he fell, thereafter Ranjit assaulted by lathi and Ankit assaulted informant by an iron rod causing injury on head and took Rs.40,000/- from his shop.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant on account of dispute relating to urea. It is next submitted that though it is alleged that petitioner assaulted informant by an iron rod causing injury on head, but then the blow is not repeated and the injury has been opined to be simple in nature and petitioner is not a criminal.

8. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application.

9. Considering the submissions made by the learned

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40588 of 2026(2) dt.06-07-2026 3/3 counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner no.2, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the sum 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 with Rosera P. S. Case No.360 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

10.

The application stands allowed.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T