Patna High Court
Nitish Kumar @ Nitesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail should be granted, subject to conditions, under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
The petitioner, Nitish Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in an FIR alleging participation in a violent assault on 20 June 2025, with offences listed under various sections of the BNS and later Section 109. He argued that he has a clean record, the informant is an agnate with whom he has a property dispute, the FIR was lodged eight days after the incident without explanation, and the injuries were simple and not repeated. The State opposed the bail but could not refute the delay and the nature of the injuries. The court considered these submissions and, invoking its powers under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, ordered that the petitioner be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to the usual conditions. The anticipatory bail application was therefore allowed.
Issues considered
- The propriety of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner given the allegations in the FIR.
- Whether the eight‑day delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the alleged injuries justify bail.
- Whether the petitioner is likely to tamper with evidence or flee, warranting denial of bail.
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- FIR delay
- false implication
- property dispute
- Section 482
- criminal procedure
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12555 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-433 Year-2025 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
Nitish Kumar @ Nitesh Kumar S/O Akhileshwar Prasad R/O Village-
Sewrahan, P.S- Harsiddhi, Distt.- East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Harsh Shashwat, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 23-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2),
117(2), 126(2), 74, 303(2), 110, 351, 352 and 3(5) of the BNS,
2023 and later Section 109 of BNS was added.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that accused persons including the petitioner came on
20.06.2025 at 08:00 AM, further on orders of Akhileshwar,
accused Sunaina and Rina dashed her on the ground and
assaulted on chest and stomach, thereafter, Raja assaulted her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12555 of 2026(2) dt.23-03-2026
2/3
husband by axe causing injury on head while petitioner
assaulted Dipendra by rod causing injury on head and Rinki
snatched her gold chain.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant, it is next submitted that petitioner and the informant
are agnates and are having dispute relating to property. It is next
submitted that even presuming what has been alleged is true
without admitting then the injury suffered by the injured has
been opined to be simple in nature (Annexure-2), and the blow
is not alleged to have been repeated. It is further submitted that
from side of the petitioner Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 437 of 2025
has been instituted against the informant and their side. It is also
submitted that the date of occurrence is 20.06.2025 and the FIR
came to be instituted on 28.06.2025 i.e. after a delay of eight
days without any plausible explanation which also casts an
aspersion on the case of the prosecution.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State as well as the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the
anticipatory bail application of the petitioner, but then are not in
a position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the FIR was instituted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12555 of 2026(2) dt.23-03-2026
3/3
after a delay of eight days and the injury suffered by the injured
has been opined to be simple and the blow is not alleged to have
been repeated.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks
from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial
court where the case is pending/successor court in connection
with Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 433 of 2025 subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of BNSS.
7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail
application is allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…