Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80069 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2025 Thana- MALAHI District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.

Manoj Kumar S/o Late Sambhu Prasad @ Shambhu Sharan Prasad Resident of village- Malahi, P.S.- Malahi, District- East Champaran. 2.

Aryan Kumar @ Ashish Gupta S/o Manoj Kumar Resident of villageMalahi, P.S.- Malahi, District- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar.

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Rajendra Singh Shastri, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 16-07-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The accused/petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with Malahi P.S. Case No. 28 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 117(2), 115(2), 109, 303(2), 3(5) of the BNS.

3. The informant alleges that on 17.01.2025 at about 6:00 PM, Manoj Kumar, his son Aryan Kumar, and 810 unknown persons attempted to forcibly occupy his land. When he resisted, Aryan Kumar allegedly attacked him with a knife at the instigation of Manoj Kumar, causing a head

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80069 of 2025(5) dt.16-07-2026 2/3 injury. The accused thereafter assaulted him with lathis and a bat, fracturing his left hand. It is further alleged that Manoj Kumar snatched a 10-gram gold chain and Rs. 25,000/- in cash, and threatened to kill the informant.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that both parties are neighbours and their houses are adjacent to each other. The boundary wall of the petitioner's house was in a dilapidated condition, and the petitioner was taking steps to construct a new boundary wall. This led to a minor scuffle between the parties. It is further submitted that there is a case and a counter case between them. Petitioners have no criminal antecedents.

5. Learned counsel further submits that the injury report reveals two injuries on the person of the informant. According to the medical report, the injuries were caused by a hard and blunt substance. Injury No. 1, located on the skull, has been opined to be simple in nature, whereas Injury No. 2, relating to the fracture of the hand, has been opined to be grievous.

6. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80069 of 2025(5) dt.16-07-2026 3/3 the prayer of anticipatory bail.

7. Having considered the rival submissions and keeping in view that the petitioner and the informant are neighbours and there is a case and counter case between the parties, this Court finds that the medical evidence does not support the prosecution's allegation of assault by a knife. Moreover, the injury on the skull has been opined to be simple in nature. As regards the other injury, no specific overt act has been attributed to any particular accused, and the injury is on a non-vital part of the body, let both above named petitioners, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned trial Court, within a period of four weeks of the order, is directed to be released on bail furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned concerned Court, East Champaran at Motihari, where the case is pending in connection with Malahi P.S. Case No. 28 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

(Ranjan Kumar Jha, J) veena/- U T