Patna High Court
Rakesh Sah @ Rakesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The Court allowed the application for anticipatory bail, granting it subject to conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, Rakesh Sah and Raju Sah, were implicated in a FIR alleging assault, robbery and other offences under several sections of the B.N.S.S. 2023. They claimed the allegations were false, arising from an old enmity and a retaliatory FIR, and that a counter‑case had also been filed against the informant. The informant’s counsel opposed anticipatory bail but acknowledged the existence of a case and counter‑case. The Court observed that the injuries described did not substantiate the serious allegations, noted the petitioners' clean antecedent, and found a genuine dispute between the parties. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. 2023, subject to strict conditions regarding appearance, non‑tampering with evidence, and non‑commission of further offences.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. 2023 in view of the allegations in the FIR.
- Whether the existence of a case and counter‑case and the nature of injuries warrant denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S., 2023 — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482
- case and counter case
- assault
- robbery
- clean antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10213 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-377 Year-2025 Thana- BAIKUNTHPUR District- Gopalganj
======================================================
1. Rakesh Sah @ Rakesh Kumar son of Late Dhrupati Sah Resident of Village
- Chiutahan ,P.S. -Baikunthpur, District - Gopalganj Bihar
2. Raju Sah Son of Late Dhrupati Sah Resident of Village - Chiutahan ,P.S.
-Baikunthpur, District - Gopalganj Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Prasoon Shekhar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajendra Nath Jha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 24-02-2026 Heard Mr. Prasoon Shekhar, learned counsel for
the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and the learned
APP for the State.
2. This application for grant of anticipatory bail arises
out of Baikunthpur Police Station Case No. 377 of 2025 dated
01.10.2025, disclosing the offence under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 109(1), 74, 329(2), 351(3), 303(2) and 3(5) of the BNS
lodged by the informant.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant alleged
that her daughter was assaulted by these petitioners and one
Rupesh Sah for a pigeon. When the informant and her husband
intervened in the matter, the petitioners, allegedly, assaulted her
husband with iron rod and sword causing cut injury to her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10213 of 2026(3) dt.24-02-2026
2/4
husband’s head. She further alleged that her prestige was also
outraged and the accused persons also snatched her
Mangalsutra and gold ear-rings of the value of Rs. 80,000/-.
Accordingly, the present FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR
and they have falsely been implicated in this case due to old
enmity. He further submits that the present FIR is a counter
version of the FIR being Baikunthpur PS Case No. 304 of 2025
having been filed on 23.08.2025 which is much prior to the
present one instituted by the mother of these petitioners, namely,
Girija Devi against the informant and others. He next submits
that only, in retaliation, the present FIR has been lodged against
these petitioners in which they are seeking anticipatory bail and
the allegations levelled against them is not corroborated from
the nature of injuries, which is said to have been sustained by
the informant’s side, rather they are found to be simple in
nature. Petitioner’s side has also lodged a counter case bearing
Baikunthpur PS Case No. 383 of 2025 against the informant and
others. Petitioners are also said to have received injuries.
However, the petitioners further undertake not to get indulge in
future in such kind of allegation and, in case, such allegations
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10213 of 2026(3) dt.24-02-2026
3/4
are being levelled against them in future, the informant and the
police will be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their
anticipatory bail.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel representing
the informant and learned APP opposed the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners but concedes that there is a
case and counter case.
6. Considering the fact that the nature of injuries
which is said to have been sustained by the family members of
the informant do not corroborate the allegations as alleged in the
FIR, there is a case and counter case between the parties and
the petitioners have got clean antecedent, this Court is inclined
to grant the petitioners the privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. This application for anticipatory bail is,
accordingly, allowed.
8. Let the petitioners, named above, in the event
of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within six
weeks from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of Smt. Sikha Kumari, learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Gopalganj/transferree court in
connection with aforesaid Police Station Case subject to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10213 of 2026(3) dt.24-02-2026
4/4
condition as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the B.N.S.S.
2023, 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 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
(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/her bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
perwez
U T
Checking your session…