← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./48105/2026bail granted

Sunil Singh @ Pappu Yadav @ Sunil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-07-22Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48105 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-182 Year-2026 Thana- DINARA District- Rohtas ====================================================== Sunil Singh @ Pappu Yadav @ Sunil Kumar S/o Mangla Singh R/o Village - Jigna, PS - Dinara, District - Rohtas (Sasaram) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Durgesh Nandan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 22-07-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Dinara P.S. Case No.182 of 2026, F.I.R dated 05.05.2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 352, 303(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. According to prosecution case, on the basis of the written application lodged by the informant, Mahendra Singh, on 05.05.2026 regarding an occurrence alleged to have taken place at about 9:00 A.M. on the same day, the present case was instituted. It is alleged that while the petitioner, Sunil Singh, was laying bricks on a piece of land, the informant objected to the same, leading to an altercation between them. During the course of the dispute, the petitioner allegedly assaulted the informant

2/4 namely Mahendra Singh on his head, causing him to fall down, forcibly took away Rs. 5,000/- from his pocket, and threatened him with dire consequences, including death. On the basis of the said allegations, the present F.I.R. came to be registered against the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner received certain land from the in-laws, which the petitioner sold away to some other person, who is said to have started hotel business, and the same was opposed by the informant and his men at the time of execution of sale deed and this has become the sole reason for the institution of the instant case. It has next been submitted that the petitioner has one criminal antecedent, which case has been lodged by the informant' family only, and is on bail in the said case and the injury, which is said to have been received by the informant as a result of scuffle, said to have taken place between the parties, is found to be simple in nature.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail application.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that due to a property dispute the incident is said to have taken place and injuries sustained by the informant are found to be

3/4 simple in nature and the petitioner undertakes to maintain peace and harmony with the informant and his family. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M-I, Bikramganj, Rohtas, in connection with Dinara P.S. Case No.182 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- (i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document/personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide; (ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or

4/4 promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;

(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds. (Ajit Kumar, J) sharun/- U T