Patna High Court
RAMESH KUMAR @ RAMESH RAMversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to monetary and procedural conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC.
Summary
The petitioners, Ramesh Kumar, Munna Ram, Sheela Devi and Manu Ram, were implicated in a police case (Kesariya PS Case No. 555 of 2023) for alleged assault, robbery and other offences under sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC. The informant claimed that the accused assaulted his family and injured his mother, who required hospitalisation. The petitioners argued that the allegations were omnibus, the mother’s injury was not on record, and the other injuries were minor; they also offered to pay Rs. 2,000 each towards the informant’s medical expenses. The State opposed anticipatory bail, highlighting a criminal antecedent of petitioner Munna Ram under the Excise Act. The Court, noting the lack of substantive proof of serious injury and the petitioners’ willingness to compensate, granted anticipatory bail with conditions, including a cash deposit, sureties, and compliance with Section 438(2) of the CrPC. The order required the petitioners to appear before the trial court and imposed strict prohibitions against tampering with evidence or committing further offences.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused persons in view of the alleged offences under the IPC.
- Whether the absence of recorded serious injury and the presence of a criminal antecedent affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
- What conditions may be imposed under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code when granting anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 324, 34, 341, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 438(2)
- injury claim
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
- offence under sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506, 34
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13126 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-555 Year-2023 Thana- KESARIA District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. RAMESH KUMAR @ RAMESH RAM S/o- Late Ramswaroop Ram R/v-
Fultakiya Ps- Kesariya Dist- East Champaran
2. Munna Ram @ Munna Kumar S/o- Ramesh Ram R/v- Fultakiya Ps-
Kesariya Dist- East Champaran
3. Sheela Devi W/o- Ramesh Ram R/v- Fultakiya Ps- Kesariya Dist- East
Champaran
4. Manu Ram @ Manu Kumar S/o- Ramesh Ram R/v- Fultakiya Ps- Kesariya
Dist- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manjeet Kumar Mishra, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
5 24-06-2026 Heard Mr. Manjeet Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel
for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Kesariya P.S. Case No. 555 of 2023 for the offence
registered under sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506/34 of the
IPC.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that as the Kesariya Police Station’s police vehicle passed
through the road, people started running and when the informant
came out, found that the accused persons who are indulged in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13126 of 2026(5) dt.24-06-2026
2/4
sale/purchase of liquor, armed variously assaulted his family
members and in the process, Sheela Devi and Ramesh Ram
injured his mother who had to move to Sadar Hospital, Motihari
for treatment. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that
omnibus allegation has been made and though allegation is
against Ramesh Ram and Sheela Devi, no injury of the mother
of the informant is on record. Further, so far as other injured are
concerned, injury has been found to be simple in nature.
5. Further, the submission is that without accepting
the allegation and/or the outcome of the present petition in view
of the fact that the informant side has alleged injuries, the
petitioners on its own would like to contribute towards the
medical assistance of Rs. 2,000/- each (totaling Rs. 8,000/-)
through Demand Draft issued by the local branch of the State
Bank of India/any Nationalized Bank to be submitted before the
‘NAZARAT’ of concerned Court to be handed over to the
informant after checking the credentials.
6. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand,
opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail submitting that
petitioner no. 2 Munna Ram also has criminal antecedent under
Excise Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13126 of 2026(5) dt.24-06-2026
3/4
7. Considering the submissions of the parties
aforesaid as also that the injury of the mother of the informant is
not on record while other injuries have been found to be simple
in nature. In that background, this Court is inclined to grant
them the anticipatory bail with conditions subject to payment of
Rs. 2,000/- each (totaling Rs. 8,000/-) as undertaken by the
learned counsel for the petitioners to be paid by Demand Draft
of local branch of the State Bank of India/any Nationalized
Bank to be submitted to the Trial Court.
8. Let the petitioners in the event of arrest or
surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt
of the order, shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing
bail of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., East
Champaran, Motihari in connection with Kesariya P.S. Case No.
555 of 2023 subject to condition as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
members/relatives of the petitioners, who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card, PAN Card, Driving License, Voter ID)
to show his bona fide;
(ii) the petitioners shall appear on each and every date
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13126 of 2026(5) dt.24-06-2026
4/4
before the Trial court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail
bond by the Trial court itself;
(iii) the petitioners 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 petitioners shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.