Uday Kumar @ Uday Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59777 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-288 Year-2025 Thana- BIDUPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== 1.
Uday Kumar @ Uday Singh S/O Ranjit Singh R/O- Chauhan Mohalla Tandu, Baghmara -Cum- Kataras, P.S.- Madhbuan, Dist.- Dhanbad, Jharkhand 2.
Mamta Devi @ Mamta Kumari W/O Mahesh Singh, D/O Ranjit Singh R/O Ward No.-16, Sandas Khurd, P.S.- Lalbagh, Dist.- Burhanpur, Madhya Pradesh-450331 3.
Amarjeet Kumar Singh @ Amarjeet Singh S/O Indradev Singh R/O Kharika, P.S.- Sanpur, Dist.- Saran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rajnikant Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Parmanand Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 11-09-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(2), 109, 303(2), 324(4), 352, 351(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and petitioner no.2 is a woman and the informant alleges that on 18.04.2025 at 8.30 A.M. the accused persons including the petitioners came and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59777 of 2025(2) dt.11-09-2025 2/3 started abusing, on protest, Uday assaulted by an iron rod causing injury on his head, further Mahesh and Amarjeet caught his brother Ravi and Mamta assaulted Ravi by an iron rod causing injury on head, thereafter the accused persons also assaulted his father by lathi, danda and snatched his chain and ring, further the injured were brought to hospital and informant was referred to Sadar Hospital, Hajipur, next alleges that earlier a dispute has arisen between the parties which was settled by the police on order of the S.D.O. and the boundary wall was constructed but later the accused persons demolished the wall and assaulted.
4. Learned counsel submits that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that on account of dispute relating to land, the occurrence is alleged to have taken place. It is next submitted that petitioners claim that the boundary wall was constructed on their land while it is the case of the informant that the boundary wall was constructed on his land. It is further submitted that no doubt allegation of assault is alleged against the petitioners but then the injury suffered by the injured is simple in nature and the blow is not alleged to have been repeated. It is also submitted that petitioners are not criminals and on account of dispute relating
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.59777 of 2025(2) dt.11-09-2025 3/3 to land, an altercation had taken place in which both side assaulted each other.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners but then the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant fairly submits that the injury suffered by the injured is simple in nature.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Bidupur P.S. Case No.288/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T