Patna High Court
Parmeshwar RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted as there is no likelihood of witness tampering or evidence tampering.
Summary
The petitioners, members of the Rai family, were implicated in a land‑dispute case arising from a panchayati held on 14‑11‑2017, where they were alleged to have assaulted the informant and his family. The FIR charged them under IPC sections 341, 323, 504, 307, 379 read with 34, and the petitioners claimed they were falsely implicated and had already been granted the benefit of Section 41A CrPC during investigation. Although a charge‑sheet had been filed under bailable offences, the investigating magistrate later invoked Section 307, prompting the petitioners to file a fresh anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC. The learned counsel argued there was no likelihood of the petitioners influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence, given the prior benefit of Section 41A and the nature of the charges. Considering these facts, the High Court found no material reason to deny bail and granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond and sureties. The order directed that the petitioners be released on bail if arrested or surrendered within four weeks, subject to the conditions of Sections 438(2) CrPC and 482(2) CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 438 CrPC in view of the earlier benefit of Section 41A and the nature of the offences.
- Whether there is a likelihood of the petitioners influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 41, 41.1, 438, 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 34, 341, 379, 504
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 41A CrPC
- land dispute
- false implication
- witness tampering
- IPC offences
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14313 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-156 Year-2017 Thana- CHAKAI District- Jamui
======================================================
1. Parmeshwar Rai Son of Late Baikunth Rai Resident of Village- Patjori,PS-
Chakai, District- Jamui
2. Falguni Rai Son of Late Kedar Rai Resident of Village- Patjori,PS-Chakai,
District- Jamui
3. Shambhu Rai Son of Late Kedar Rai Resident of Village- Patjori,PS-Chakai,
District- Jamui
4. Sudhir Rai Son of Late Kedar Rai Resident of Village- Patjori,PS-Chakai,
District- Jamui
5. Kuldeep Rai Son of Late Kedar Rai Resident of Village- Patjori,PS-Chakai,
District- Jamui
6. Mukesh Rai Son of Kuldeep Rai Resident of Village- Patjori,PS-Chakai,
District- Jamui
7. Rupesh Rai Son of Kuldeep Rai Resident of Village- Patjori,PS-Chakai,
District- Jamui
8. Bablu Rai son of Shambhu Rai Resident of Village- Patjori,PS-Chakai,
District- Jamui
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Akhauri Kamal Kishore Sahay, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
2 25-03-2026 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail,
arises out of Chakai Police Station Case No. 156 of 2017,
disclosing offences under Sections 341, 323, 504, 307, 379 read
with Section 34 of the IPC
3. As per the First Information Report, on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14313 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
2/3
14.11.2017, a panchayati was held between the informant and his
co-sharers. During the course of the panchayati, the petitioners,
armed with lathis and sticks, started abusing the informant and his
family members. When they objected, they were assaulted, as a
result of which they sustained injuries.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. He further
submits that the petitioners and the informant are co-sharers, and
during the course of the investigation, the petitioners were
extended the benefit of Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. It has further
been submitted that the charge-sheet was filed against the
petitioners under bailable sections, and accordingly, the
anticipatory bail application of the petitioners was withdrawn in
2017. Recently, cognizance has been taken by the learned
Magistrate, differing from the police report by invoking Section
307 of the IPC, which necessitated the petitioners to file a fresh
anticipatory bail application before the learned Sessions Judge.
The same has been dismissed without proper application of
judicial mind.
5. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf
of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that both the
parties are co-sharers having some land dispute and during course
of investigation, the petitioners were given benefit of Section 41A,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14313 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
3/3
charge-sheet has already been submitted and there is no likelihood
that the petitioners will influence the witnesses and tamper the
evidences, I am inclined to grant the petitioners privilege of
anticipatory bail.
6. This application is, accordingly, allowed.
7. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of
their arrest or surrender before the Court below within four weeks,
be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten
thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned J.M.-1st Class/concerned Court, Jamui, in
connection with Chakai Police Station Case No. 156 of 2017,
subject to the condition laid down under Section 438 (2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J)
priyanka/-
U T
Checking your session…