Umesh Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80350 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-343 Year-2025 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East Champaran ====================================================== UMESH PRASAD Son of Late Sukdev Prasad @ Sukdawe Prasad Resident of Village - Dhekaha Lakshman Tola, P.S.- Muffasil, District - East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Aditya Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State :

Dr. (Mrs.) Indiwar Kumari, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Kushagra, Advocate Mr. Kaustubh Ojha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 09-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 303(2), 352 and 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that petitioner assaulted him by Lathi causing injury on head. Thereafter Abhishek Kumar assaulted by sharp edged weapon causing injury on head while Sanju Devi and Vivek Kumar assaulted him by Lathi, Farsa, Dao etc. all over his body

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80350 of 2025(2) dt.09-12-2025 2/3 and reason for the occurrence was that informant objected theft of his bamboo by Umesh Prasad.

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 petitioner and the informant are own brothers and informant is elder brother. It is thus submitted that the allegation that petitioner committed theft of bamboo of the informant does not arise. It is also submitted that petitioner is not a criminal and the injury suffered by the injured has been opined to be simple in nature.

5. Learned APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant oppose the anticipatory bail application but then are not in a position to rebut the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner and the informant are own brothers and the injury has been opined to be simple in nature and petitioner is not a criminal.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, let petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80350 of 2025(2) dt.09-12-2025 3/3 (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/Successor Court in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No.343 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