Patna High Court
Banti KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to a bail bond and conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Summary
The petitioner, Banti Kumar, was accused of offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 74, 351(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, for allegedly assaulting and attempting to outrage the modesty of an informant on 23‑08‑2025. The FIR was lodged four days later, and the petitioner claimed the case was false, arising from a loan dispute with the informant’s family. He sought anticipatory bail, arguing innocence, clean antecedents and the unexplained delay in filing the FIR. The State opposed bail, highlighting the seriousness of the offences and the FIR delay. The Court granted anticipatory bail, directing the petitioner to furnish a bail bond of Rs.30,000 and imposing conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., while ordering the trial court to verify any undisclosed criminal antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted despite the seriousness of the offences alleged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the four‑day delay in lodging the FIR warrants denial of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of a false case arising from a loan dispute affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 2(1)(d), 351(2), 351(3), 482(2), 74
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- delay in FIR
- false case claim
- assault
- criminal law
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- loan dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10537 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1406 Year-2025 Thana- PHULWARISHARIF District- Patna
======================================================
Banti Kumar Son of Binod Rai @ Vinod Ray Resident of Village- Chakmusa,
Muradpur, Ward No. 11, Bhusaula, Danapur, P.S.- Jaanipur, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar Vivek, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shahabuddin Azeem @ S. Azeem, A.P.P
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 12-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Phulwarisharif P.S. (Jaanipur) P.S. Case No. 1406 of 2025
lodged on 27.08.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections
126(2), 115(2), 109, 74, 351(2), 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against
three named accused persons including the present petitioner. It
has been alleged in the FIR that the petitioner entered in the
house of the informant and started abusing her and also tried to
outrage her modesty. It has also been alleged that on the
instigation of other accused persons, the petitioner has attacked
the informant by iron rod on her head due to which, she became
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10537 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
2/3
unconscious. Subsequently, the petitioner fled away and also
threatened the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel
submits that the alleged occurrence took place on 23.08.2025,
but the FIR has been lodged on 27.08.2025 i.e. after a delay of
about four days. The said delay has not been explained. He
further submits that the cause has also not been stated in the FIR
as to why the allegation has been made against the petitioner.
But, he submits that in the rejection order, a categorical stand
has been taken by the petitioner that he has given loan to the
informant’s family and when the petitioner put pressure for
refund of the loan amount, then the informant’s side has filed
false case against the petitioner and other relatives. Counsel
further submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
bail of the petitioner but fairly submits that from the record, it
transpires that the alleged occurrence took place on 23.08.2025,
but the FIR has been lodged on 27.08.2025 i.e. after a delay of
about four days and the said delay has not been explained.
6. As such, in the present facts and circumstances of
this case, let the above named petitioner be released on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10537 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
3/3
anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the
Trial Court within a period of 4 weeks from today, on furnishing
bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) as
mentioned in Section 2(1)(d) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 to the
satisfaction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Patna, in
connection with Phulwarisharif P.S. (Jaanipur) P.S. Case No.
1406 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down U/s 482(2)
of the B.N.S.S., 2023.
7. The Trial Court is directed to verify the criminal
antecedent(s) of the petitioner, and in case, it is found at any
stage that the petitioner has concealed the fact about his criminal
antecedent(s), the Trial Court shall take steps for cancellation of
bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of the bail
bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be
delayed for the purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
U T
Checking your session…