Prince Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77999 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-289 Year-2025 Thana- NARPATGANJ District- Araria ====================================================== Prince Kumar S/o Arun Yadav Resident of Village- Kanhaili, Ward No. 06, P.S.- Narpatganj, District- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Vijay Kishore Bharti, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 16-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rabindra Kumar, learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a young boy, aged about 18 years, and the informant alleges that accused persons came on her land and were ploughing, accordingly, the police was informed, thus they left, but after sometime, 12 named accused persons including the petitioner came and Raj Kishore Yadav gave orders to assault thereafter Naresh Yadav and Arun Yadav caught her and Gaurav Yadav assaulted her by farsa causing injury on head, while Prince Kumar assaulted her
2/4 father-in-law Anmol Yadav by sword causing injury on head, thereafter Arun Yadav assaulted her husband Sunil Kumar repeatedly by farsa causing injury on head, next alleges that on account of assault, her nose fractured while her father-in-law suffered fracture of left hand and Kumita Devi snatched her chain and Amit Kumar also assaulted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegations, as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that petitioner is alleged to have assaulted the father-in-law of the informant causing injury on head. It is next submitted that injury report of father-in-law of the petitioner is annexed as Annexure2 to the anticipatory bail application and from perusal of the same, it would manifest that Anmol Yadav suffered grievous injury. It is also submitted that statement of Anmol Yadav was recorded during the course of investigation at para-11 of the case diary and from perusal of the same, it would manifest that he has not stated that it was Prince Kumar who assaulted him causing injury on head rather has made a specific statement that it was Gaurav Yadav who assaulted him causing injury. It is further submitted that if the statement of Anmol Yadav is read in
3/4 its entirety, then also, it will transpire that no specific allegation is alleged against Prince Kumar, i.e., the petitioner herein. It is reiterated and submitted that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is a young boy, aged about 18 years, and the injured himself, in his statement recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., has not alleged anything against the petitioner, as such, if petitioner is sent to judicial custody, his entire career would get jeopardized and chances are bright that he may come in contact with hardened criminals.
5. Learned APP opposes the anticipatory bail application but then fairly submits that from perusal of para-11 of the case diary, it would manifest that Anmol Yadav has not stated that this petitioner assaulted him rather has stated that he was assaulted by Gaurav Yadav.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also taking into consideration the fact that petitioner is a young boy, aged about 18 years and is a person with clean antecedent and the injured has not named him as one who assaulted, let petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
4/4 each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria in connection with Narpatganj P.S. Case No.289 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sanjay/- U T