Patna High Court
Saurabh kumar @ saurav singhversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to petitioners No. 1 and No. 2, and petitioner No. 3’s application was dismissed as not maintainable.
Summary
The petitioners, three residents of Naokothi, applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a police case alleging extortion, assault, and robbery under multiple sections of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR describes the accused entering the informant's house, threatening and assaulting family members, damaging property, and stealing money and ornaments. The petitioners argued they were falsely implicated due to village rivalry and that most alleged offences are bailable, contesting the applicability of Section 74. The informant opposed bail, highlighting the petitioners' alleged criminal antecedents, particularly petitioner No. 1. The court, considering the seriousness of the allegations and the antecedents of petitioners No. 1 and No. 2, refused anticipatory bail to them, and dismissed petitioner No. 3’s application as non‑maintainable because he had been declared a juvenile. The order also allowed a fresh bail application for petitioner No. 3 if his juvenile status is later disproved.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused under the listed sections of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the presence of criminal antecedents of petitioners No. 1 and No. 2 precludes grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the application of petitioner No. 3 is maintainable given his alleged juvenile status.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 126(2), 308(3), 324(4), 329(3), 329(4), 3(5), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 74
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- extortion
- assault
- robbery
- juvenile
- criminal antecedent
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- bailable offences
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14374 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-224 Year-2025 Thana- NOWKOTHI GARHPURA District-
Begusarai
======================================================
1. Saurabh kumar @ saurav singh son of Manoj Singh Resident Of Vill -
Naokothi @ Nawkothhi, Ward no. 08, Ps- Naokothi @ Nawkothhi, Dist-
Begusarai
2. Shivam Kumar @ Shivam Singh Son of Shushil Kumar @ Shushil Singh @
Sarla Resident Of Vill - Naokothi @ Nawkothhi, Ward no. 05, Ps- Naokothi
@ Nawkothhi, Dist- Begusarai
3. Karka @ Piyush @ Piyush Kumar Son of Ashok Kumar Singh @ Pintu
Singh Resident Of Vill - Naokothi @ Nawkothhi, Ps- Naokothi @
Nawkothhi, Dist- Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arvind Kumar
For the State : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay
For the informant : Mr. Shubhesh Pandey
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
2 25-03-2026 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned
Counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out
of Naokaothi @ Nawkothhi Police Station Case No. 224
of 2025, dated 02.12.2025, disclosing offences punishable
under Sections 126(2)/115(2)/308(3)/324(4)/329(3)/329
(4)/74/352/351(2)/351(3)/3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14374 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
2/4
3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report,
is that on 01.12.2025, at about 11:50 AM, the accused
persons, including the petitioners, variously armed,
entered into the house of the informant abusing him and
demanded Rs. 50,000/- as rangdari and threatened that the
son of the informant would be abducted and killed if the
informant did not give the extortion money. The accused
persons tried to take away the son of the informant, which
was protested by the sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the
informant, upon which the accused persons started
assaulting the sister-in-law (bhabhi) of the informant and
when the informant and other family members tried to
save her, the accused persons assaulted them also. The
accused persons also damaged the motorcycle of the
informant, took away Rs. 10,000/- from the box and some
gold and silver ornaments.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated
in this case due to village rivalry. He further submits that
there is general and omnibus allegation against all the
accused persons and no specific allegation of assault has
been levelled against them. The injuries sustained by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14374 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
3/4
victims are simple in nature and that too, on the non-vital
part of their bodies. He further submits that except
Section 74 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, all other
sections are bailable in nature and from going through the
First Information Report, it is crystal clear that there is no
ingredients of Section 74 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 alleged in the First Information Report.
5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the informant
vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and
submits that the accused persons are dictatorial persons of
the locality. He further submits that the petitioner no. 1
has concealed his criminal antecedent in the present
application inasmuch as it is mentioned in this application
that the petitioner no. 1 has no criminal antecedent,
whereas the petitioner no. 1 is involved in one criminal
case.
6. Regards being had to the submissions advanced on behalf
of the parties and taking into consideration the nature of
allegation and the criminal antecedents of the petitioner
nos. 1 and 2, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner nos.
1 and 2 privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. This application is dismissed so far as petitioner nos. 1
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14374 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
4/4
and 2 are concerned.
8. Insofar as the petitioner no. 3 is concerned, it has been
informed by learned Counsel for the informant that as per
his instruction, the petitioner no. 3 has been declared
juvenile.
9. In that view of the matter, the anticipatory bail application
of the petitioner no. 3 is disposed as not maintainable.
10.However, if it comes to the knowledge of learned Counsel
for the petitioners that the petitioner no. 3 has not been
declared juvenile, a fresh anticipatory bail application can
be filed against the impugned order before this Court on
behalf of the petitioner no. 3 only.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
U √ T √
Checking your session…