Veeru Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47511 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2026 Thana- Vasudevpur District- Munger ====================================================== 1.

Veeru Kumar Son of Sri Madan Sahni Resident of Mohalla- Chaukandi, P.S.- Basudeopur, District- Muzaffarpur.

2.

Shyam Sahni Son of Saukhi Sahni Resident of Mohalla- Chaukandi, P.S.- Basudeopur, District- Muzaffarpur.

3.

Amar Kumar Son of Shyam Sahni Resident of Mohalla- Chaukandi, P.S.- Basudeopur, District- Muzaffarpur.

4.

Amit Kumar Son of Yogendra Sahni Resident of Mohalla- Chaukandi, P.S.- Basudeopur, District- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Nityanand, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 24-07-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this present bail application, as petitioner no.1 has been arrested and, as such, the present application has become infructuous.

3. Accordingly, the present bail application of petitioner no.1, namely Veeru Kumar stands dismissed as withdrawn, having become infructuous.

4. Now, this application survives only for petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47511 of 2026(2) dt.24-07-2026 2/3 nos. 2 to 4.

5. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Vasudevpur P.S. Case No. 41 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109, 117(2), 352, 351(2)(3) and 109 of the BNS.

6. The allegation against the petitioners is that they forcibly entered the house of the informant, assaulted the informant, and attempted to outrage the modesty of the informant.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the parties are involved in a land dispute, in respect of which Title Suit No. 67 of 2016 is pending. It is further submitted that, with regard to the same occurrence, both a case and a counter-case have been instituted. Learned counsel contends that, even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at their face value, they are general and omnibus in nature. It is also submitted that the injuries sustained by the informant's side are simple in nature.

8. Learned APP vehemently opposed the prayer of anticipatory bail.

9. Having considered the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, particularly the nature of the injuries, the pendency of a title suit between the parties, and the fact that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47511 of 2026(2) dt.24-07-2026 3/3 there is a case and counter-case arising out of the same occurrence, let all the petitioners named above be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each of the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Munger/concerned court, in connection with Vasudevpur P.S. Case No. 41 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. (Ranjan Kumar Jha, J) rishabh/- U T