Patna High Court
Rahul TiwariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, finding the allegations insufficient to deny bail.
Summary
The petitioners, Rahul Tiwari and Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No.81 of 2025 alleging offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including assault and grievous hurt. The prosecution alleged that the accused, along with Nand Kishor Tiwari, attacked the informant’s son with knives and a gadasa, causing grievous injuries. The petitioners contended they were falsely implicated, noting that the victim’s injuries were simple and that one petitioner had a prior conviction unrelated to the present case while the other had a clean record. The court examined the nature of the injuries, the seriousness of the alleged offences, and the petitioners’ antecedents, and found the evidence insufficient to deny bail. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438 of the CrPC and Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438 CrPC/Section 482 B.N.S. given the alleged offences and nature of injuries.
- Whether the simple nature of the victim's injuries and the petitioners' criminal antecedents preclude bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 118(2), 126(2), 329(3), 3(5)
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 B.N.S.
- simple injury
- criminal antecedent
- assault
- Rohtas
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11469 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-81 Year-2025 Thana- INDRAPURI District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. Rahul Tiwari S/o Nand Kishor Tiwari R/o Village - Bhaluari, P.S - Indrapuri,
District - Rohtas
2. Sanjeev Kumar Tiwari S/o Late Nand Lal Tiwari R/o Village - Bhaluari, P.S
- Indrapuri, District - Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Tiwari
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Bhanu Pratap Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 01-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending his arrest in
connection with Indrapuri P.S. Case No.81 of 2025, F.I.R dated
17.06.2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(2), 109, 329(3) and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, at about 5:00 P.M.,
while the informant’s son was sitting on a chair near the
khalihan and his tractor was also stationed there, accused Nand
Kishor Tiwari armed with a gadasa, along with Sanjeev Tiwari
and Rahul Tiwari armed with knives, arrived at the spot. It is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11469 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
2/4
alleged that Nand Kishor Tiwari exhorted the others to kill the
informant’s son on the ground that he used to interfere in his
work, whereupon Sanjeev Tiwari and Rahul Tiwari assaulted the
informant’s son on his stomach with knives, while Nand Kishor
Tiwari inflicted injuries on other parts of his body with the
gadasa. As a result of the said assault, the informant’s son
sustained grievous injuries and fell on the ground, after which
all the accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence.
Thereafter, the injured was taken to Dehri Sub-Division
Hospital and was subsequently referred to Sadar Hospital,
Sasaram, and thereafter to Varanasi Trauma Centre in view of
the seriousness of his injuries.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the
present case and there is case and counter case and both the
sides have sustained injuries while the son of the informant,
who is said to have sustained injuries, is found to be simple in
nature. It has further been submitted that petitioner No.1 has one
criminal antecedent which is not akin to the instant case while,
petitioner No.2 has clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail application.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11469 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
3/4
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that the nature of injuries sustained by the son of the informant
is simple in nature and does not corroborate with the nature of
allegations levelled in the F.I.R. and that petitioner No.1 has one
criminal antecedent which is not akin to the instant case and
while, petitioner No.2 has clean antecedent. Accordingly, this
Court is inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
7. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of
their arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period
of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released
on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned J.M. 1st Class, Dehri, Rohtas, in connection with
Indrapuri P.S. Case No.81 of 2025, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita and with other following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the family
member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide
official document/personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11469 of 2026(3) dt.01-04-2026
4/4
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his/her/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 their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
sharun/-
U T
Checking your session…