Prabhat Sharma v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86241 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-502 Year-2024 Thana- TURKAULIYA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Prabhat Sharma Son of Chandrika Sharma Resident of Village - Turkauliya, Ward No.- 05, Police Station - Turkauliya, District - East Champaran at Motihari.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Shashank Shekhar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rajiv Nayan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 27-02-2026 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Turkauliya PS Case No. 502 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109, 76, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case and is in custody since 510-2025 and the informant alleges that on 21.11.2024, he along with his son Dinesh were sitting at the door, when at about 12:30 P.M., all the accused persons came variously armed and started abusing and asked to stop the ongoing repairing work of the house, on which, Dinesh protested on the ground that they

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86241 of 2025(2) dt.27-02-2026 2/3 do not have any share in the house, on which, the accused persons got agitated and assaulted the informant and his son causing injury on head and hand of Dinesh while informant's left hand got fractured and when the daughter-in-law of the informant came to their rescue, she was also assaulted and her saree and blouse were torn and when villagers gathered, the accused left threatening that they would set the house on fire on 31.12.2024, if their share in the land is not given and the house is not vacated.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that on account of dispute relating to land, the occurrence is alleged to have taken place. It is next submitted that father of the petitioner is own brother of the informant and are having dispute relating to property. It is further submitted that no doubt injury suffered by Dinesh has been opined to be grievous in nature, but then the said injury is not on vital part of the body rather is on the hand. It is also submitted that informant also suffered three injuries, one on parietal region, but then the injury which has been opined to be grievous is found on the hand. It is next submitted that allegation of assault is also not specific.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86241 of 2025(2) dt.27-02-2026 3/3 5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6.

Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into account the fact that petitioner is in custody since 5-10-2025 and the occurrence took place on account of dispute relating to land, let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (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 Turkauliya PS Case No. 502 of 2024.

7.

However, it is made clear that if the learned trial court comes to a conclusion that the petitioner after his release is trying to delay the framing of charge or after framing of charge is trying to delay the trial in any manner, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T