Pappu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40932 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-95 Year-2026 Thana- ROH District- Nawada ====================================================== Pappu Kumar S/O Brijnandan Yadav R/O Village-Mahakar,PS- Roj, DisttNawada ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shankar Kumar, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rajiv Nayan, APP For the Informant :

Ms. Varsha Ranjan, Adv :

Mr. Shubham Kumar Singh, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER 25-06-2026 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and apprehending his arrest in connection with Roh P.S. Case No. 95/2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.

3. The allegation against petitioner is to assault informant by using iron rod during the course of occurrence causing head injuries, where occurrence alleged to be arising out of previous enmities.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that allegation of assault by lathi is also available against father of this petitioner namely Brijnandan Yadav, who has already been granted bail by learned Trial Court. It is submitted that the occurrence was free fight in nature, where both parties received injuries, but fairly conceded that no criminal case was registered by petitioner's side. It is further argued that the allegation of assault causing bodily injuries is available against co-accused Brijnandan

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40932 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026 2/2 Yadav also, therefore, it can be safely said that allegation of assault as available against this petitioner is not specific, rather same appears general and omnibus in nature. Petitioner found involved in one more case, where he is on bail.

5. Learned APP duly assisted by learned counsel for the informant while opposing the prayer of bail submitted that FIR itself speaks specifically that this petitioner assaulted informant by iron rod causing head injury, which upon medical examination found grievous in nature. It is submitted that by taking note of nature of weapon which is iron rod, the body part which is the vital part of the body and the nature of injury, which is grievous in nature, collectively, sufficient to suggest that petitioner was under intention to cause death of the informant/injured.

6. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by taking note of fact as allegation to cause grievous head injury by iron rod prima-facie is specifically available against this petitioner, accordingly prayer of anticipatory bail of petitioner stands rejected.

7. If petitioner surrenders before learned trial court, learned trial court may expedite and decide his prayer of bail in earliest possible time, in accordance with law. (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) S.Tripathi/- U T