Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47581 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-80 Year-2025 Thana- CHAINPUR District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Sandeep Kumar @ Sandeep Kumar Singh S/o- Nandu Singh Resident of village- Mahula P.S. Chainpur, District-Kaimur at Bhabua ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajani Kant Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Nirala- A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 30-07-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in Chainpur P. S. Case No.80 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109, 103(1), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B. N. S.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that on account of dispute, her daughter in-law (Puja) went to her parental home and after sometimes, came back to her matrimonial home and threatened that her family members are coming to teach them a lesson. Further, accused persons along with the petitioner came and petitioner along with Binod assaulted the husband of the informant by bamboo

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47581 of 2025(2) dt.30-07-2025 2/2 causing injury on head. Thereafter, Puja and Indrashan Devi assaulted the informant causing injury on head while Nachku, Rahul and Chhotu assaulted her son also named Sandeep causing fracture of hand.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that petitioner is brother in-law of Puja and is alleged to have assaulted the husband of the informant along with Binod by bamboo causing injury on head. It is thus submitted that allegation of assault is not specific.

5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that there is a specific allegation against the petitioner and Binod of assaulting the husband of the informant by bamboo on head which is vital part of the body leading to his death..

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T