Meraj Ansari v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83043 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-729 Year-2025 Thana- SIKARPUR District- West Champaran ====================================================== 1.
Meraj Ansari Son of Doma Miyan Resident of Village- Rajpur Ward No. 12, P.S.- Shikar Pur, District- West Champaran 2.
Nesar Ansari son of Sharif Miya @ Sharif Resident of Village- Rajpur Ward No. 12, P.S.- Shikar Pur, District- West Champaran 3.
Bhola Ansari @ Tejabul Ansari Son of Manif Ansari Resident of VillageRajpur Ward No. 12, P.S.- Shikar Pur, District- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Alexander Ashok, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Manindra Kishore Singh, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 17-12-2025 Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners, learned Advocate for the informant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Shikarpur P.S. Case No. 729 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 303(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. While the son of the informant was returning to his house on his tempo, in the meanwhile, the petitioners along with others intercepted and started assaulting. It is specifically alleged that all the three petitioners have assaulted him by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83043 of 2025(2) dt.17-12-2025 2/3 means of knife and sharp edged weapon, due to which he sustained serious injuries over the vital part of the body.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that the informant is not eyewitness to the alleged occurrence, moreover, on account of previous enmity, the name of the petitioners have been implicated, but it has not been specifically alleged that the injuries sustained to the informant's son have been specifically attributed to these three petitioners. The petitioner no. 1 though bears two criminal antecedent, whereas the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 bear one criminal antecedent each, however, all of them undertake before this Court that they will fully co-operate in the proceeding of the Court. The injuries, which are allegedly sustained to the informant's son, as per the instruction, are found to be simple in nature.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State and the informant opposed the pre-arrest bail application and submits that all the injuries are sustained on the vital part and besides the fact the petitioners are carrying criminal antecedent, the process under Section 84 of the BNSS has already been issued.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83043 of 2025(2) dt.17-12-2025 3/3 the fact that besides the criminal antecedent of the petitioners, the process under Section 84 of the BNSS has already been issued against the petitioners, this Court is not acceded to the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
(Harish Kumar, J) shivank/- U T