Sanjeet Paswan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51817 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-153 Year-2026 Thana- DORIGANJ District- Saran ====================================================== Sanjeet Paswan S/o Jagdish Paswan @ Jagdish Manjhi Resident Of VillageChirand Dighi, Ps- Doriganj, Dist- Saran Chapra ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ajay Kumar Tiwary,Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ram Naresh Ray, APP For O.P. No. 2 :
Mr. Kashlendra Rai, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 29-07-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Doriganj P.S. Case No. 153 of 2026, F.I.R dated 19.03.2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(2), 352, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 18.03.2026 at about 8:00 P.M., the informant Sonu Kumar and his cousin brother Nikash Paswan went to the shop of Sanjeet Paswan at Jhanga Chowk for repair of a truck self. Upon their request, Sanjeet Paswan allegedly abused them and refused to repair the vehicle. When the
2/4 informant protested, Sanjeet Paswan along with Jaiman Paswan, Ranjeet Paswan and Jagdish Paswan surrounded them. It is alleged that Jaiman, Ranjeet and Jagdish caught hold of the informant and his cousin brother, while Sanjeet Paswan assaulted both of them with a knife, causing injuries on various parts of their bodies. On hearing alarm, local persons arrived and intervened, whereafter the injured were taken for treatment. And, accordingly the F.I.R.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the nature of injury sustained does not corroborate the allegations made in the F.I.R., howeve, it has been admitted that the informant has sustained injuries for which the petitioner proposes to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the informant to provide financial support to the medical treatment received owing to the injuries sustained, without accepting his guilt. It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes not to commit any such offense in future. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned counsel for the informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail application but, in order to bring quietus to the on-going dispute, accepts the proposal of the petitioner to provide financial assistance to the informant, on
3/4 account of medical treatment.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and the nature of injury, which is not corroborating with the allegations leveled in the F.I.R. and proposal given by the petitioner for financial assistance being provided to the injured in an effort to put an end to the on-going dispute and undertaking for not committing any such offfence in future and the petitioner having clean antecedent. 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.-VIII, Chapra, Saran in connection with the aforementioned P.S. Case, 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
4/4 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 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) surya/- U T