The court determined that the severity of the allegations against the petitioners justified the denial of bail pending trial.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

4 11-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioners have preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case no.525 of 2025, registered under sections 329(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109, 308(3), 303(2), 61(2), 352, 351(2)

and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 .

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that the five named accused persons including the two petitioners herein as also 10-12 unknown accused persons came variously armed with iron rod, farsa, nalkatua etc. They entered the house of the informant, started to abuse him and on protest by the informant, the assault took place. Pintu Kumar is said to have assaulted Mokshit Kumar, the son of the informant with an iron rod on his head. Rajan Kumar is said to have assaulted the informant with an iron rod on his head. Besides the petitioners, there is specific allegation of assault against other persons also.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. There is case and counter case between the parties, the case lodged by the petitioners’ side being earlier in time. As against the allegation of assault with sharp cut weapon, no corresponding injury having been found, the very allegation made by the informant in the FIR fails. The petitioners are in custody since 25.8.2025 and 10.8.2025 respectively. Chargesheet has been submitted in the case. They have no criminal antecedent. It is finally submitted that in the counter case, co-accused Tripakar Jha @ Kripakar Jha and Kiran Jha @ Kiran Devi have been enlarged on bail vide order dated 16.12.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.

no.79027 of 2025.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Learned counsel for the informant submits that so far as grant of bail to the aforesaid two persons in the counter case by order dated 16.12.2025 is concerned, the allegation of assault leading to grievous injury on the vital part of the body is not on them. It is further submitted that both the assault attributed to the petitioners herein on the informant and Mokshit Kumar have been found to be on vital part of the body and grievous in nature. As such it is prayed that the application for bail be rejected.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, the allegation against the petitioners being of having assaulted with an iron rod leading to corresponding grievous injuries on the informant side, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail and the application is rejected.

7. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to renew their prayer for bail after completing one year in custody.

(Partha Sarthy, J)