Patna High Court
Pawan DubeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail to petitioner 1 but granted it to petitioner 2 subject to conditions under Section 482 of the BNSS.
Summary
The petitioners, Pawan Dubey and Chitranjan Dubey, applied for anticipatory bail in connection with a case alleging assault with weapons causing simple and grievous injuries under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The prosecution alleged that the accused assaulted the informant and family members with iron rods, a farsa and a lathi. The petitioners argued that the allegations were vague, stemmed from a long‑standing land dispute, and that the injuries to the second petitioner were only simple. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences and the presence of criminal antecedents. The court denied bail to petitioner 1, citing the grievous injuries and his prior record, but granted bail to petitioner 2 on the condition of simple injury, with a bond of Rs 10,000 and specific surety and compliance conditions, subject to Section 482 of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner 1 given the nature of the alleged offences and his criminal antecedents
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner 2 considering the alleged simple injury and his criminal antecedent
- Applicability of Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in granting anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 76
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- assault
- grievous injury
- simple injury
- criminal antecedent
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 482
- bail conditions
- land dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11786 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-111 Year-2025 Thana- SANICHARI District- West Champaran
======================================================
1. Pawan Dubey S/O Late Bhulan Dubey R/O Bahuarwa Gora, Ward No. 08,
P.S.- Sanichari, District- West Champaran
2. Chitranjan Dubey @ Chitranjan Kumar Dubey S/O Anil Dubey R/O
Bahuarwa Gora, Ward No. 08, P.S.- Sanichari, District- West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Abhyanand, Advocate
Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Pushpa Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 26-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their
arrest in connection with Sanichari P.S. Case No. 111 of 2025
instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 76, 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. The prosecution case is to the effect that the named
accused persons all variously armed assaulted the informant and
other family members including the ladies with iron rod, farsa
and lathi.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11786 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
2/4
though there is specific allegation of assault upon the two
petitioners, however, one of the injured to which the petitioner
no. 2 had assaulted had sustained simple injuries while the
person who had been assaulted by the petitioner no. 1 had
received grievous injuries. It has further been submitted that
there is general and omnibus allegation against all and therefore
the injuries having been inflicted by the petitioners, cannot be
said with conviction. It is further submitted that there is counter
case lodged on behalf of the petitioners’ side also and it is on
account of long standing land dispute between the parties that
the occurrence had taken place. It has also been submitted that a
Title Suit is also pending between the parties, however, in order
to settle the same, the present false and concocted case had been
lodged. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner no. 1 has
four criminal antecedents and petitioner no. 2 has one criminal
antecedent.
5. Learned APP appearing on behalf of the State as
well as the learned counsel for the informant vehemently
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and have stated that the
petitioners had brutally assaulted the informant and others
causing grievous injuries. It has further been submitted that the
petitioner no. 1 was carrying farsa and therefore the intentions
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11786 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
3/4
to kill was very clear. It has further been submitted that multiple
injuries have been sustained by the injured persons and
therefore, the petitioners do not deserved to grant the liberty of
anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and taking into account the nature of injuries sustained by the
injured persons, I am not inclined to grant bail to petitioner no. 1
namely Pawan Dubey and hence, the application as against the
petitioner no. 1 stands dismissed.
7. However, with regard to allegations levelled upon
petitioner no. 2 and the specific allegation of assault on the
injured, which was found to be simple, the petitioner no. 2
namely Chitranjan Dubey @ Chitranjan Kumar Dubey is
directed to be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or
surrender before the court below within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, on
his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah,
West Champaran in connection with Sanichari P.S. Case No. 111
of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
482 of the BNSS and subject to the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors will be a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11786 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
4/4
close relative of the petitioner no. 2 and the
other shall be a local resident:
(ii) the petitioner no. 2 will
remain present on each and every date fixed
by the Court below, if so required by the
learned Trial Court;
(iii) in case of absence on two
consecutive dates or in violation of the terms
of the bail, the bail bonds of the petitioner
no. 2 will liable to be cancelled by the Court
concerned;
(iv) the Court below shall verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner no. 2
and in case at any stage, it is found that the
petitioner no. 2 has concealed his criminal
antecedent, the court below shall take step
for cancellation of bail bonds of the
petitioner no. 2. However, the acceptance of
bail bonds in terms of the above mentioned
order shall not be delayed for purpose of the
same on in the name of verification.
8. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
krishna/-
U T
Checking your session…