Shashi Shandilya @ Ankit Kumar @ Shashi Sandili @ Shashi Shandilip v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42246 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2025 Thana- BARHIYA District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Shashi Shandilya @ Ankit Kumar @ Shashi Sandili @ Shashi Shandilip S/o Ram Uday Shandilya Resident of Village- Ramsen Tola, P.S.- Barahiya, Distt.- Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Amrendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Tapeshwar Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 09-07-2025 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 Sections 126(2), 115, 109(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person clean antecedent and is alleged to have assaulted the informant by bamboo causing injury on his head and eye on account of dispute relating to payment of supply of water.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case by the informant. It is also submitted that informant is alleged to have

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42246 of 2025(2) dt.09-07-2025 2/2 assaulted by bamboo causing injury on his head and eye, which amply demonstrates that petitioner never had any intention of committing any serious injury.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that on perusal of the order impugned, it would manifest that the same records that- the injury suffered by the injured is opined to be grievous in nature as the injured suffered acute extradural hemorrhage along with left frontal convexin.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP for the State, this Court is not inclined to extend privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Saurav/- U T