Satish Kumar Sharma v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44890 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-189 Year-2026 Thana- CHAPRA MUFFASIL District- Saran ====================================================== 1.
Satish Kumar Sharma Son of Rajkumar Sharma Resident Of Village- Naini, PO- Naini, Ps- Chapra Muffasl, Dist- Saran at Chapra 2.
Manish Kumar Sharma son of Rajkumar Sharma Resident Of Village- Naini, PO- Naini, Ps- Chapra Muffasl, Dist- Saran at Chapra ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Jeetendra Narayan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 08-07-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Chapra Muffasil P.S. Case No. 189 of 2026, for allegedly having committed offence under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.
3. As per the prosecution story, which has been lodged on the basis of the written report submitted by the informant to the effect that on the date of occurrence, while the informant was at his home, all the accused persons, including the petitioners came there and started using filthy language. The petitioner no.1 assaulted the informant with a knife on his head, due to which he sustained injuries on his head and the petitioner no.2 assaulted the informant on his head with an iron rod. It is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44890 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026 2/3 further stated that all the accused persons assaulted the informant, due to which he sustained injuries.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any offence. He further submits that from perusal of the injury report, which has been annexed as Annexure-2 with the present anticipatory bail petition, it would transpire that the doctor, who treated the injured Rajesh Kumar Sharma, found the injuries to be simple in nature, caused by a blunt substance. He further submits that there is a land dispute in between the parties from before and this fact would be evident from the statement made in first information report itself. The petitioners have got one criminal antecedent bearing Chapra Muffasil P.S. Case no. 97 of 2017, in which they are on bail.
5. Per contra, the learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submits that the petitioners have a criminal antecedent and therefore, they do not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. Having heard the rival submissions and after going through the records, it appears that there is a land dispute in between the parties from before and even criminal cases are pending in between the parties. From perusal of the injury
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44890 of 2026(2) dt.08-07-2026 3/3 report, which is at Annexure-2 to the present anticipatory bail petition, it would transpire that the doctor, who treated the injured, has found the injuries to be simple in nature. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra in connection with Chapra Muffasil P.S. Case No. 189 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., with further condition:
(1) The learned Court concerned shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedents, the court concerned shall take steps for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification. (Ritesh Kumar, J) AjayMishra/- U T