IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84701 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-196 Year-2024 Thana- SAHPUR District- Bhojpur ======================================================

Tuntun Prasad @ Tuntun Kumar, aged about 27 years, male, S/o Baban Prasad Resident of village - Bharawali, P.S - Shahpur, District - Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sahja Nand Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER

3 20-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC.

3. As per allegation in the FIR, on 16.05.2024, at about 08:00 O’ Clock, the petitioner along with other co- accused persons came at the house of the informant, namely, Sona Devi and started misbehaving with her upon which when her husband came to save her, the accused persons assaulted her husband by axe on his head due to which he sustained head injury. It is further alleged that other co- accused persons also assaulted her by axe on her head and also snatched her golden chain and Mangalsutra from her neck.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He next submits that accused petitioner is younger brother of the husband of the informant and there is admitted property dispute between the parties. He next submits that both the parties are agnates. He next submits that doctor has not found the injury of husband of the informant is grievous in nature. He next submits that petitioner has got no criminal antecedent as stated in para-3 of the bail petition.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that there is specific allegation of assault against the present petitioner.

6. On perusal of the First Information Report, Impugned Order dated 24.07.2025, it appears that there is direct and specific allegation of assault upon the present petitioner and also the fact that husband of the informant sustained two injuries on vital part of the body at the occipito- parietal region and vertex of head. So, considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned counsels for both the parties and nature of injuries sustained by the injured, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)

Harshita/- U T