Shankar Thakur v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57017 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-311 Year-2025 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran ====================================================== Shankar Thakur S/O Anwat Thakur @ Anat Thakur @ Anant Thakur Resident of village- Olhan, P.S.- Harsidhi, Dist.- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Abhishek Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Zainul Abedin ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 311/2025 dated 24.05.2025 registered for the offence punishable u/s 115, 117(2), 126, 109, 76, 303(2), 351, 352 read with Section 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has earlier lodged a case against Ramesh Thakur in connection with Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 579/2024 for theft of electricity and in this regard husband of the informant also made a video of theft of electricity and in that very case the informant and husband of the informant were assaulted by the accused persons and they
2/4 also threatened to kill them for which husband of informant gave information to S.D.O. and the S.D.O. has directed the Harsidhi P.S. to investigate the matter. When the police personnel returned, the petitioner and other accused persons along with five unknown miscreants armed with lathi, danda and iron rod assaulted the informant, causing injury. On noise of informant, her husband and her daughter came to save her then the accused persons assaulted them due to which they sustained injuries. Thereafter, the co-accused Ramesh Thakur with an intention to kill the husband of informant inflicted iron rod blow causing fracture injury on his hand. Further, the petitioner with an intention to kill, assaulted the informant due to which the informant sustained injury and fell on the ground. The coaccused, Ramesh Thakur also outraged the modesty of informant and snatched her mangalsutra.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. In para-31 and 32 of the case diary, injury report of informant Prabhawati Devi and husband of informant Manoj Thakur are available in which the informant Prabhawati Devi has sustained 1. Swelling size 31⁄2 cm x 21⁄2 cm
3/4 on left forearm, 2. Swelling size 21⁄2 cm x 2cm on rt. Hand, 3. lacerated wound size 3 1/2cm x 1/2 cm muscle deep on It. perital region of scalp red in colour and injured Manoj Thakur has sustained 1. swelling size 6cm x 4 1/2 cm lt. forearm, 2. lacerated wound size 3 1/2cm x 1/4 cm bone deep over lt. side of forehead, red in colour 3. contusion size 9 1/4 cm x 1 1/2 cm on rt. upper back, 4. contusion size 3cm x 1 cm on rt. upper back, 4. pain with swelling size 2 cm x 1 1/2 cm (rt.) ring finger. Injury no. 3 of informant and injury no. 2 of husband of informant is on the vital part of the body. The petitioner has clean antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is in custody since 25.05.2025.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the period of custody, the petitioner abovenamed, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court concerned, Motihari, East Champaran in connection with Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 311/2025, with the condition ;- (i). The petitioner is directed to remain physically
4/4 present before the learned Court below on each and every date, failing which on two consecutive dates without reasonable cause, the bail bond of the petitioner is liable to be cancelled.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) atul/- U T