CR. MISC./58363/2026 of Sanjeet Kumar Rai @ Sanjeet Kumar Vs The State of Bihar on 19 August 2026

ORAL ORDER

19-08-2026 Heard Mrs. Bela Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Goraul P.S. Case No. 725 of 2025 for the offence punishable under sections 191(2),126(2),115(2),118(1), 109, 303(2), 351(2), 352 of the BNS lodged on 05.12.2025 by the informant.

3. As per the prosecution case, the allegation against the petitioners is that on 03.12.2025 at about 6:00 PM, they along with other accused persons having been armed with the various weapons came at the door of informant and started abusing him and when the accused persons were protested by the family members of the informant, the petitioner no.1

assaulted with Farsa on the head of his brother, namely, Rakesh Kumar and petitioner no.2 is said to have caused injury to one Anand Kumar by means of an axe. Other accused persons are also said to have injured the other family members of the informant including women folks. It has further been alleged that the accused persons have also taken away the valuables worth of Rs. 10 Lacs including the cash of Rs. 2 Lacs. Accordingly, the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case due to party politics. There is a case and counter case between the parties as on the same day itself, the petitioner’s side has instituted a case bearing Goraul P.S. Case No. 726 of 2025 under

the

same

sections

i.e.,

u/ss 191(2),126(2),115(2),118(1),109,303(2), 351(2), 352 of the BNS against the informant of the present case and others. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation of overt-act is against petitioner no.1, who is said to have inflicted injuries upon Rakesh Kumar (brother of the informant) while petitioner no.2 is said to have caused injury to one Anand Kumar by means of an axe. By referring to the order impugned, it has been submitted that the injuries, received by the injured persons, have been found to be simple in nature.

5. The submission, made by the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the injuries being simple in nature, has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the informant. Further, petitioners undertake to maintain peace and harmony with the informant’s side and would co-operate with the investigation. It has lastly been stated that the co-accused persons of the same case, namely, Manish Kumar, Sunny Kumar, Jawahar Ray @ Javahar Rai have already been granted privilege of anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 12.05.2026 in Cr.Misc. No. 30640 of 2026 and another co-accused, Raghuvir Kumar Rai @ Raghuveer Kumar has also been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 29.07.2026 in Cr. Misc. No. 52651 of 2026.

6. Learned APP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail, however, concedes that the injuries are simple and the co- accused persons have already been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court.

7. Considering the nature of injury being simple in nature, there is a case and counter case between the parties, co- accused persons, as stated above, have been granted privilege of anticipatory bail, this Court is inclined to extend them the privilege of anticipatory bail.

8. Let the petitioners, above named, be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with aforesaid PS Case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS as well as the following conditions:-

(i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;

(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;

(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;

(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his/their bail bonds.

perwez (Ajit Kumar, J) U