Suraj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77195 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-123 Year-2025 Thana- Singhaul District- Begusarai ====================================================== Suraj Kumar Son of Late Satya Narayan Rai, Resident of Village-Rachiyahi, Tola-Kachahari,Ward No-01, P.S-Singhaul,District-Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Saket Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Zainul Abedin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 11-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in a case instituted under Sections 191(2), 190, 126(2), 115(2) and 109 of the B.N.S.

3. As per prosecution case, on the alleged date of occurrence, the named accused persons including petitioner came to the house of informant Aarti Kumari and started beating her and her husband. Petitioner is alleged to have assaulted the informant's husband with iron rod on back of his head due to which he fell down and thereafter all the accused persons assaulted him with bricks and stone as a result of which the husband of informant sustained injuries.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77195 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case due to dirty village politics. The informant and the petitioner are agnates. The petitioner has clean antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner by contending that there is direct allegation of assault to the husband of informant on his head with iron rod against the petitioner causing head injury. He further submits that the injury report shows that the injury caused to the injured is found to be grievous in nature. Therefore, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation made against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected. (Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) Harish/- U T