Patna High Court
Mantosh Kumar @ Mantosh SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Summary
Mantosh Kumar and Mukesh Kumar, nephews of the informant, were implicated in a land‑dispute related case (Bairiya PS Case No.531/2025) alleging assault, grievous injuries and other offences. They filed an anticipatory bail application, claiming false implication and that the FIR lacks specific details, also noting the youth of the second petitioner. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the assault, prior criminal history, and risk of absconding. The informant’s counsel argued the FIR, though not exhaustive, contains specific allegations of brutal assault causing serious injury. After hearing both sides, the Court found the submissions of the State persuasive and declined to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petitioners' anticipatory bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under the circumstances of the FIR.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute a serious offence justifying denial of bail.
- Whether there is a likelihood of the petitioners absconding if bail is granted.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 76
- Indian Penal Code
- POCSO Act
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- land dispute
- assault
- FIR
- false implication
- criminal procedure
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14122 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-531 Year-2025 Thana- BAIRIYA District- West Champaran
======================================================
1. Mantosh Kumar @ Mantosh Sharma S/o Sanchit Sharma Resident of
Village- Laukariya, Ward No. 16, P.S.- Bairiya, Dist.- West Champaran
2. Mukesh Kumar @ Mukesh Sharma S/o Sanchit Sharma Resident of Village-
Laukariya, Ward No. 16, P.S.- Bairiya, Dist.- West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sitesh Kashyap
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 12-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the informant.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Bairiya P.S. Case No.531/2025, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 76, 109(1), 303(2),
352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have antecedent of one case and the informant
alleges that 30 katha of land was equally divided amongst the
three brothers after leaving a 10 ft. path but petitioners who are
his nephew along with other named accused persons were
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14122 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
2/4
constructing a room over the path, on objection by the daughter-
in-law of the informant, namely, Madhu, the brother of the
informant namely Sanchit and his daughter-in-law started
abusing and assaulting Madhu and tore her saree, further when
the son of the informant Rakesh came to save Madhu, Mukesh
and Mantosh (petitioners) on order of their father Sanchit,
assaulted him by bamboo causing injury on mouth and nose and
he became unconscious, thereafter Babita, Sarita and Renu
assaulted his wife and younger son and Shravan took out
Rs.10,000/- from his pocket and Mukesh snatched his chain.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the
occurrence took place on account of dispute relating to land. It
is also submitted that petitioners are own nephew of the
informant. It is further submitted that though it is alleged that
petitioners assaulted Rakesh by bamboo causing injury but then
the allegation of assault is not specific. It is also submitted that
petitioner no.2 is a young boy aged about 19 years.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14122 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
3/4
anticipatory bail of the petitioners. Learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the informant submits that FIR is not an
encyclopedia that all the facts are given in detail. It is next
submitted that there is specific allegation of assaulting Rakesh
by the petitioners. It is also submitted that the assault was so
brutal that Rakesh had to be referred to PMHC and had to
undergo a brain surgery. It is next submitted that no doubt the
occurrence took place on account of dispute relating to land
amongst the agnates but then the manner in which the force was
used by the petitioners amply demonstrates their intention. It is
also submitted that the injuries have been opined to be grievous
in nature. It is next submitted that no doubt the petitioner no.2 is
a young boy but then petitioners earlier were also implicated in
a case registered under the Indian Penal Code and POCSO Act
which further reflects their mentality. It is also submitted that if
privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, the
petitioners may abscond.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
Court is in complete agreement with the submissions made by
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant as such
is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the
petitioners.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14122 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
4/4
7. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioners
is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…