Sujeet Kumar @ Sujeet Kumar Kushwaha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52736 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-38 Year-2019 Thana- BHANGHA District- West Champaran ====================================================== Sujeet Kumar @ Sujeet Kumar Kushwaha, S/o Madan Kushwaha, R/o Village - Pratap Pur Bhangaha, P.S - Bhangaha, District - West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Shrivastava, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, APP For the Informant :

Ms. Kumari Akansha Rai, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 11-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the Informant.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bhangaha P.S. Case No. 38 of 2019 dated 06.07.2019, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 342, 379, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per allegation, the petitioner is alleged to have assaulted the victim by farsa on his head.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that after investigation, the police has submitted charge-sheet against some other co-accused persons, but case against the petitioner was closed, finding the case untrue. But, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioner under Section 307 and other Sections of I.P.C.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52736 of 2025(2) dt.11-08-2025 2/2

5. He further submits that the petitioner has been languishing in jail since 17.06.2025.

6. It has also been stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

7. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail petition that the petitioner has moved this Court earlier either for anticipatory bail or regular one.

8. However, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the Informant vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioner for bail submitting that the injury has been caused by the petitioner on the head i.e. vital part of the victim and learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance against the petitioner. Even, as per the injury report there is injury on the head of the victim, though it is simple in nature.

9. Considering the fact that the assault made by the petitioner on the head of the victim, I am not persuaded to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

10. Accordingly, the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Jitendra Kumar, J.) shoaib/- U T