Patna High Court
Pramod Singh @ Prabhat RanjanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Pramod Singh, sought anticipatory bail in a case alleging assault and homicide under sections 126(2), 329(2), 103(1) and 3(5) of the BNS. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner assaulted the informant's father‑in‑law on 14‑09‑2025, leading to the victim's death on 16‑09‑2025, with the FIR lodged on 17‑09‑2025. The petitioner contended that the FIR was unduly delayed, the post‑mortem report showed no external injuries, and the medical board could not conclusively link the injuries to the death, arguing that the death could not have resulted from the alleged assault. The court examined the delay, the medical evidence, and the petitioner’s clean antecedent, and found that the prosecution had not established a direct causal link. Relying on Section 482(2) of the BNSS, the court exercised its inherent powers and granted anticipatory bail subject to standard conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in view of the alleged assault and death.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the absence of external injuries negate the prosecution's case.
- Whether Section 482(2) of the BNSS empowers the court to grant bail in such circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable (BNS) — s. 103(1), 126(2), 329(2), 3(5)
- Bihar Negotiable (BNSS) — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- delay in FIR
- post‑mortem report
- medical board
- Section 482
- clean antecedent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14111 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-145 Year-2025 Thana- MAHESHKHUNT District- Khagaria
======================================================
Pramod Singh @ Prabhat Ranjan S/o- Late Tarni Singh R/v- Babu Bagicha
PS- Maheshkhunt District-Khagaria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nitin Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Bhanu Pratap Singh, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 18-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State through video conferencing.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Maheshkunth P.S. Case No. 145 of 2025 for
the offence punishable under sections 126(2), 329(2), 103(1),
3(5) of the BNS lodged on 17.09.2025 by the informant.
3. As per the prosecution case, the allegation against
the petitioner is that on 14.09.2025, he along with other accused
persons took the father-in-law of the informant to their home on
the pretext of uprooting the Moringa trees but they assaulted her
father-in-law by means of brick, stone, rod, lathi and stick and
further threatened to kill the entire family if the incident would
be disclosed. It is further alleged that in the previous night, he
took his food and in the morning he was found dead.
Accordingly, the FIR.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14111 of 2026(4) dt.18-05-2026
2/5
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner along with his family members have falsely been
implicated in this case due to oblique motive. The allegation
against this petitioner is that he took forcefully the father-in-law
of the informant to his home and beaten him mercilessly by
means of brick, stone, rod, lathi and stick on 14.09.2025. It is
the case of the petitioner that the incident has taken place on
14.09.2025 while the deceased is said to have found dead on
16.09.2025 in the morning and the FIR has been instituted on
17.09.2026 and there is no plausible explanation for such delay
in lodging of the FIR. Most surprisingly, the deceased was not
taken to the hospital or any doctor for treating the so-called
injury caused by this petitioner. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submits that from the postmortem report, it
would be evident that no external injuries have been found on
the person of the deceased which is in direct conflict and in
contradiction to the allegations as levelled in the FIR. The
postmortem report further reveals that the cause of death is
haemorrhage and shock which led to CRF due to the injuries.
Thereafter, a four members Medical Board was also constituted
in the matter on 15.12.2025 and the Medical Board in its report
stated “that since body has been cremated, they are unable to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14111 of 2026(4) dt.18-05-2026
3/5
discuss findings written on P.M. report but the injuries
mentioned in P.M. report could be possible but with these
injuries, patient can die within minutes to hours”.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the
postmortem report and the report of the Medical Board submits
that had the petitioner caused the injuries of that magnitude, the
deceased must have died within minutes to hours, but the
deceased died after two days of the incident which took place on
14.09.2025 while the deceased died on 16.09.2025. As a result
of which, it can be inferred that the petitioner’s assault is not the
reason of his death rather it would have been something else
too, because as per the informant, the deceased had taken meal
in the night of the date of incident and was seen moving the in
the village as per para-8 of the case diary and the fact of taking
meal has been supported by some of the witnesses as mentioned in
the case diary. Nothing incriminating and specific has been found
even in the case diary. Petitioner has got clean antecedent and he
deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. Learned APP opposes the prayer for anticipatory
bail.
7. Considering the submissions of the parties and the
facts mentioned in the postmortem report as well as in the report
of Medical Board, no external injury has been found on the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14111 of 2026(4) dt.18-05-2026
4/5
person of the deceased, the incident took place on 14.09.2025
while the deceased died on 16.09.2025 in his home, the FIR has
been lodged after much unexplained delay and this petitioner
has got clean antecedent, this Court is inclined to extend him the
privilege of anticipatory bail.
8. Let the petitioner, above named, be released on
bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four
weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of
Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Khagaria in connection with aforesaid PS Case,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of
the BNSS as well as the following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the
family member/relative of the petitioner(s)
who shall provide official document to show
his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) 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/their bail
bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no
way try to induce or promise or threat the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14111 of 2026(4) dt.18-05-2026
5/5
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(s) shall desist
from committing any criminal offence again,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to
take steps for cancellation of his/their bail
bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
perwez
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.