Patna High Court
Laxman RamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail to Kundan Ram but granted it to Laxman Ram and Devkali Devi subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
The petitioners – Laxman Ram, Devkali Devi and Kundan Ram – applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a case (Govindganj P.S. Case No. 162 of 2025) involving multiple offences under the Bihar Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the accused assaulted the informant and his family, causing grievous injuries, and the charge sheet contained an omnibus allegation against all three petitioners. The court noted that while specific allegations existed against Kundan Ram, the charges against Laxman Ram and Devkali Devi were merely omnibus and they had no prior criminal record. Consequently, the court rejected Kundan Ram’s anticipatory bail application but granted bail to Laxman Ram and Devkali Devi subject to a cash bond of Rs 10,000 each, two sureties, and conditions under Section 438(2). The conditions include appearance before the trial court, non‑interference with witnesses, and refraining from further offences.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to petitioners facing omnibus allegations under Section 438 CrPC
- Whether specific allegations against Kundan Ram justify denial of anticipatory bail
- What conditions may be imposed on anticipatory bail in such circumstances
Legislation cited
- Bihar Penal Code (BNS) — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 303(2), 352, 74
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438
- omnibus allegation
- bail conditions
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Bihar Penal Code
- assault
- grievous injury
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13179 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-162 Year-2025 Thana- GOVINDGANJ District- East
Champaran
======================================================
1. Laxman Ram S/O Late Bachchan Ram Resident of Village - Mananpur, P.S.
- Govindganj, District - East Champaran.
2. Devkali Devi W/O Laxman Ram Resident of Village - Mananpur, P.S. -
Govindganj, District - East Champaran.
3. Kundan Ram S/O Laxman Ram Resident of Village - Mananpur, P.S. -
Govindganj, District - East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 29-04-2026 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State as also the informant.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Govindganj P.S. Case No. 162 of 2025 for the offence
registered under sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2),
118(1), 109, 303(2), 74, 352 of BNS.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that the accused persons armed variously came and petitioner
no. 3, Kundan Ram gave lathi blow on the head of the informant
and when the other family members came to rescue,
Madhuranjan Ram assaulted Birendra again on the head
whereas Pankaj Ram gave knife blow to Manju Devi. Allegation
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13179 of 2026(3) dt.29-04-2026
2/4
of assault is against other accused persons also including these
persons. The injured were shifted to Areraj Hospital which
followed the FIR.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that
admittedly, so far as petitioner nos. 1 and 2, namely, Laxman
Ram and Devkali Devi respectively are concerned, omnibus
allegation is there, even against Kundan, there is no allegation
of second blow.
5. Learned counsel for the informant on the other
hand submits that a perusal of the injury report would show that
the injuries of the informant have been found to be grievous in
nature.
5. Learned APP for the State also opposes the prayer
for anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions of the
parties, so far as petitioner no. 3, Kundan Ram is concerned, in
view of allegation against him, his anticipatory bail application
stands rejected.
7. Regarding petitioner nos. 1 and 2, namely, Laxman
Ram and Devkali Devi respectively are concerned, omnibus
allegation is there, they do not have criminal antecedent, one of
them is a lady, in that background, this Court is inclined to grant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13179 of 2026(3) dt.29-04-2026
3/4
them the anticipatory bail with conditions.
7. Let the petitioner nos. 1 and 2, namely, Laxman
Ram and Devkali Devi 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 Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-1st, East Champaran at Motihari in
connection with Govindganj P.S. Case No. 162 of 2025 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 petitioner nos. 1 and 2, namely,
Laxman Ram and Devkali Devi, who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card, PAN Card, Driving License, Voter ID)
to show his bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner nos. 1 and 2, namely, Laxman Ram
and Devkali Devi shall appear on each and every date 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 petitioner nos. 1 and 2, namely, Laxman Ram
and Devkali Devi shall in no way try to induce or promise or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13179 of 2026(3) dt.29-04-2026
4/4
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 nos. 1 and 2, namely, Laxman Ram
and Devkali Devi 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
Checking your session…