Patna High Court
Pandav MandalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail was not granted as the court found no sufficient ground to justify its issuance.
Summary
The petitioner, Pandav Mandal, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a FIR (Mansi PS Case No. 271 of 2025) alleging that he, along with others, opened fire and caused a grievous head injury to the informant's husband, among other assaults. The prosecution alleged that the incident arose because the informant's husband refused to work as a labourer, leading to a violent confrontation. The petitioner argued that the informant and family members gave inconsistent statements, casting doubt on the veracity of the allegations. The State presented the injury report, which confirmed that the injury sustained was grievous in nature. After reviewing the FIR, the injury report, and the inconsistencies, the Court concluded that the criteria for granting anticipatory bail were not satisfied and therefore rejected the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under the circumstances of the FIR and the injury report.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- grievous injury
- arms act
- criminal procedure
- FIR
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11973 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-271 Year-2025 Thana- MANSI District- Khagaria
======================================================
Pandav Mandal S/o- Anup Mandal Village- Saidpur, Ward no.1, P.S. Mansi,
Distt.- Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Gulnar Begum, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 29-04-2026 Heard Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Mansi P.S. Case No. 271 of 2025 instituted under Sections
126(2), 115(2), 109, 352, 75, 3(5) of BNS and Section 27 of
Arms Act lodged on 02.12.2025 by the informant Raghni Devi.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that the accused persons including the petitioner came, armed
variously and thereafter the allegation against this petitioner is
of opening fire causing the injury on the head of the husband of
the informant. The allegation of assault is on others too. The
reason is that the informant’s husband refused to work as labour
in the filed which infuriated the accused persons. This led to the
F.I.R.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11973 of 2026(3) dt.29-04-2026
2/2
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
different statements have been made by the informant as also
the family members as reflected from the case diary.
5. However, Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned APP has
taken this Court to the injury report to show that the injury
sustained by the husband of the informant has found to be
grievous in nature.
6. Considering the allegation that has come against
the petitioner and on perusal of the injury report, this Court is of
the opinion that no case of anticipatory bail is made out.
7. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail is
rejected.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Abhishek/-
U T
Checking your session…