Brajesh Kumar @ Brijesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85159 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2025 Thana- BHADAUR District- Patna ====================================================== Brajesh Kumar @ Brijesh Kumar S/O Ramswaroop Prasad R/O VillDhanushbigha, P.S-Bhadaur, Distt-Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Damodar Prasad Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 12-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in Bhadaur P.S. Case No. 43 of 2025 registered under Sections-126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of BNS.

3. The prosecution case in short is that at the relevant date and time, while the informant's brother returned from duty, the accused persons came there and started abusing her brother and in consequence thereof, the petitioner is said to have assaulted the informant's brother on his head, as a result of which, he sustained injuries and became fainted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85159 of 2025(2) dt.12-12-2025 2/2 this case. There is delay in lodging the FIR and no explanation has been offered for delay in instituting the case. It is also submitted that prior to the present case, the petitioner No. 1 has also lodged a case against the informant's father and others. The present case is nothing but counter blast and just to save their skin, the present false prosecution has been lodged. It is also submitted that the injuries are simple nature and though one injury in the opinion of the doctor is grievous but as a matter of fact, the same is not grievous.

5. On the otherhand, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail by submitting that there is specific allegation against the petitioner to inflict rod blow on the head of the injured. The injury report shows that the petitioner was unconscious and the injury was endanger to life.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for privilege of anticipatory bail and accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) A.K.V.//- U T