Seikh Sahil @ Sahil Ahmad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43367 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-212 Year-2025 Thana- RAMNAGAR District- West Champaran ====================================================== Seikh Sahil @ Sahil Ahmad S/O Seikh Faiyaz @ Faiyaz Ahmad R/O VillageBahuari New Market, Ramnagar, P.s.- Ramnagar, Dist- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms.Prerna Anand For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Sangeeta Sharma Md. Abu Haidar, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 16-07-2025 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Ramnagar P.S. Case No. 212 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(2), 109(1), 351(2), 352, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits petitioner has antecedent of one case and petitioner is alleged to have assaulted the informant by knife causing injury on his back and stomach. It is next submitted that the injury suffered by the injured is simple in nature.

4.

The learned APP and the learned counsel appearing

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43367 of 2025(2) dt.16-07-2025 2/2 on behalf of the informant opposes the anticipatory bail application. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that there is a specific allegation against the petitioner of assaulting the informant by knife causing injury on his back and stomach, which are vital parts of the body. It is next submitted no doubt the injury is opined to be simple, but then the same has been inflicted by knife, which is a dangerous weapon.

5.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T