CR. MISC./41594/2026 of Guddu Kumar Aryan @ Guddu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar on 17 August 2026

ORAL ORDER

17-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.

2. The Petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Shahpur Patori P.S. Case No. 463 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 110, 74, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS and Section 8, 12 of the POCSO Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, on 10.11.2025 at about 8:00 A.M., the informant, Renku Devi, was present at her house along with her son Avinash Kumar and minor daughter. In the meantime, Guddu Kumar Aryan (petitioner no. 1) and Akhilesh Rai (petitioner no. 2) were allegedly breaking the boundary of her field situated behind her house with a spade, while Durga Devi (petitioner no. 3) and Ankit Kumar were present there. When the informant objected to the same, all the accused persons started abusing her and thereafter attacked her house and damaged the articles kept therein. It is further alleged that when the informant fled from the house to save herself, the accused persons chased and caught her. When her son Avinash Kumar came to rescue her, Guddu Kumar (petitioner no. 1) assaulted him on the head with an iron rod with an intention to kill him, causing a serious head injury, as a result of which he became unconscious. When the informant's minor daughter came to rescue them, Guddu Kumar (petitioner no. 1) pulled her hair, threw her to the ground, tore her salwar and assaulted her, and thereafter hit her on the head with the iron rod, causing a head injury, as a result of which she became unconscious. It has further been alleged that the petitioner no. 3, Durga Devi, threw the informant to the ground and pressed her chest with her knee, and the other accused persons assaulted her with fists. On hearing commotion the villagers gathered there, thereafter, all the accused persons fled from the spot and with the help of the villagers, the informant and her injured son and daughter were taken to the Patory Sub-Divisional Government Hospital, from there they were referred to the Sadar Hospital, Samastipur, for better treatment.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. It has further been submitted that although there is a specific allegation against the petitioner no. 1 of having assaulted the son and daughter of the informant, the injury reports available in the case diary, which was called for by order dated 01.07.2026, indicate that both the injured son and the minor daughter of the informant sustained simple injuries. The son of the informant had sustained one lacerated wound on his forehead, as stated by him, and the injury report of the victim (X) also shows laceration on the scalp, as stated by her. It has further been submitted that the parties are heirs/descendants of a common ancestor and there is a land dispute between them with regard to the partition of the land. The occurrence took place suddenly on a trivial issue without any premeditation to kill. It has also been submitted that there is a delay of six days in lodging the present FIR. Moreover, from the educational certificate supplied by the informant herself, it appears that the victim (X) was above 18 years of age on the date of the alleged occurrence, as her date of birth is shown as 28.03.2006 and the alleged occurrence took place on 10.11.2025. Hence, she was above 18 years of age on the date of the occurrence and, therefore, the provisions of the POCSO Act would not be applicable. It has next been submitted that the petitioners have one criminal antecedent, in which they are on bail, as stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail petition. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioners would cooperate in the trial.

5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 has submitted that there is an allegation that the petitioner no. 1 misbehaved with the daughter of the informant and tore her clothes and the petitioners nos. 2 and 3 have also actively participated in the alleged occurrence. It has further been submitted that, as per the FIR, the injured daughter of the informant was a minor on the alleged date of occurrence.

6. Heard the parties and perused the record.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the injuries sustained by the injured persons, the delay in lodging the present FIR, coupled with the facts that the parties are heirs of a common ancestor and the educational certificate supplied by the informant to the Investigating Agency showing the victim (X), daughter of the informant, to be a major on the alleged date of occurrence, let the above named petitioners, in the event of their arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court concerned, Samastipur in connection with Shahpur Patori P.S. Case No. 463 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the (B.N.S.S.).

8. This application stands allowed.

9. It is directed that the petitioners shall neither threaten the informant or his family members nor tamper with the evidence. If any application is filed in violation of the aforesaid condition, the court below shall examine the facts and circumstances of the case and pass an appropriate order.

Jyoti/- (Praveen Kumar, J) U T