Sandeep Prasad @ Sandip Prasad v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90973 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-80 Year-2025 Thana- ROH District- Nawada ====================================================== Sandeep Prasad @ Sandip Prasad S/O Rajendra Chauhan R/O VillageNayadih, Derhgaon, P.S.- Kashichak, Dist.- Nawada. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Vivek Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Pranav Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 10-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 74, 118(1), 117(2), 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S..
3. As per prosecution case, allegation has been levelled against all the named accused persons that they came and assaulted informant's daughter and when son of informant intervened in order to rescue, he was also assaulted. It is further alleged that co-accused Shubhash Chauhan assaulted informant by means of knife.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90973 of 2025(2) dt.10-02-2026 2/2 committed no offence. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R.. As a matter of fact, on account of admitted land dispute between the parties, a simple maar-peet took place in which both sides sustained injuries. There is case and counter-case. Allegation of assault is general and omnibus. Petitioner claims clean antecedents.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submitted that name of petitioner surfaced during course of investigation on the basis of video footage wherein this petitioner was seen outraging the modesty of the victim and the said fact is also supported and corroborated by statement of the witnesses.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, specific and direct nature of accusation and materials that have surfaced during course of investigation, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashank/- U T