Ajay Kumar Sharma v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53996 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-48 Year-2025 Thana- INDRAPURI District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1.
Ajay Kumar Sharma S/o Jagdish Sharma R/o Village- P.P.C.H. Colony Narayanpur (Katar), P.S.- Indrapuri, District- Rohtas 2.
Sabnam Sharma @ Sabnam Lata W/o- Ajay Kumar Sharma R/o VillageP.P.C.H. Colony Narayanpur (Katar), P.S.- Indrapuri, District- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners :
Mr. Md Fazle Karim, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Rajni Kant Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 21-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 74, 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 30.03.2025, the petitioners abused and assaulted informant and also snatched gold necklace worth Rs. 2,50 Lakhs from her neck and when husband of informant came to save her, he was also assaulted by these petitioners.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 is own brother of informant's husband, whereas petitioner no. 2 is wife of petitioner no. 1 and due to property dispute, this false and concocted case has been lodged. Earlier, a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53996 of 2025(2) dt.21-08-2025 2/2 compromise was made between the parties and as per compromise, the house in question came in the share of petitioner no. 1, even thereafter, the informant and her husband did not vacate said house and when petitioners pressurized for the same, the informant has filed this false and concocted case against petitioners. F.I.R. has been lodged after a delay of four days of alleged occurrence without any plausible explanation of delay. Petitioners claim clean antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant opposed the bail petition.
6. Considering the relationship between the parties and clean antecedent, let the above named petitioners, in the event of their arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Indrapuri P.S. Case No. 48 of 2025, subject to condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay U T