Patna High Court
Lakshman Pandey @ Lakshma Pandey @Mangaru PandeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The court granted pre‑arrest bail to petitioners 1‑3 with conditions and denied bail to petitioner 4, ordering his custody.
Summary
The petitioners, four members of the Pandey family, applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case (Buxar Muffasil P.S. Case No. 367/2025) alleging offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109 and 3(5) of the Bihar Negotiable Sale Act. The FIR alleged that they assaulted an informant and his relatives in a dispute over illicit liquor sales, causing injuries. The petitioners contended they were falsely implicated and that the incident was a mutual free‑fight between two Gotia groups, with petitioners 1‑3 having clean antecedents and petitioner 4 having prior convictions under the Excise Act. The State opposed bail. The court, after examining the facts, granted pre‑arrest bail to petitioners 1‑3 subject to a Rs.10,000 bond and two sureties, directing verification of their antecedents, but denied bail to petitioner 4, ordering his immediate custody due to his prior offences and alleged involvement in illicit liquor trade. The bail application was disposed of accordingly.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted to petitioners 1‑3 under Section 482(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Sale Act given the nature of the allegations and their clean criminal records.
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be denied to petitioner 4 because of prior convictions under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and alleged participation in illicit liquor trade.
- Whether the existence of a case and counter‑case between the parties influences the bail decision.
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- criminal antecedent
- illicit liquor trade
- case and counter‑case
- Section 482
- Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act
- Bihar Negotiable Sale Act
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1447 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-367 Year-2025 Thana- BUXAR MUFFSIL District- Buxar
======================================================
1. Lakshman Pandey @ Lakshma Pandey @Mangaru Pandey S/O Late
Rambadan Pandey
2. Om Nath Pandey @ Munna Pandey @ Omkar Nath Pandey S/O Lakshman
Pandey @Lakshma Pandey @Mangaru Pandey.
3. Dipak Pandey @ Dipak Kumar Pandey S/O Lakshman Pandey @ Lakshma
Pandey@ @Mangaru Pandey
4. Sri Kishun Pandey @ Vikash Pandey @ Srikrishna Pandey S/O Lakshman
Pandey @Lakshma Pandey @Mangaru Pandey
All are R/O of Village- Chausa ,P.S. - Buxar Muffasil , District Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ravi Shankar Pathak, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Bharat Bhushan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 21-04-2026 Heard Mr. Ravi Shankar Pathak, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Bharat Bhushan,
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection
with Buxar Muffasil P.S. Case No. 367/2025 registered for the
offence(s) punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2),
109 and 3(5) of the BNS.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the accused
persons named therein including the petitioners with an
intention to kill assaulted the informant and his family members,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1447 of 2026(4) dt.21-04-2026
2/5
causing injuries.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent and have
falsely been implicated in the present case. Petitioners and
informant are own Gotia. There is case and counter case
between the parties arising out of same incidence and due to a
petty dispute, an altercation took place and both the sides
entered into free fight, in which both the sides sustained injuries.
Allegation against the petitioner no.1 is that he assaulted one
Brajesh Pandey on his head by means of iron rod but no injury
has been found on the body of the injured Brajesh Pandey.
Allegation against the petitioner no.2 is that he assaulted the
informant by means of lathi but the injury sustained by the
informant has been found to be simple in nature. Allegation
against the petitioner no.3 is that he assaulted Umesh Pandey on
his head by means of back of Garasa but the injury sustained by
him has also been found to be simple in nature. Allegation
against the petitioner no.4 is that he assaulted Sujit Kumar by
iron rod. Petitioners no.1, 2 and 3 have clean antecedents,
whereas, the petitioner no.4 has two criminal antecedents under
the Excise Act.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1447 of 2026(4) dt.21-04-2026
3/5
prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation made in
the FIR, I find that the petitioners are alleged to be indulged in
illicit sale of liquor, which was objected by the informant’s side,
as a result of which, the said occurrence took place. Both
parties are gotia. There is case and counter case between the
parties arising out of same incidence and due to a petty dispute,
an altercation took place in which both the sides sustained
grievous injuries. Specific allegation against the petitioner no.1
is that he assaulted one Brajesh Pandey on his head by means of
iron rod but no injury has been found on the body of the injured
Brajesh Pandey. Allegation against the petitioner no.2 is that he
assaulted the informant by means of lathi but the injury
sustained by the informant has been found to be simple in
nature. Allegation against the petitioner no.3 is that he assaulted
Umesh Pandey on his head by means of back of Gadarsa but
the injury sustained by him has also been found to be simple in
nature. Allegation against the petitioner no.4 is that he assaulted
Sujit Kumar by iron rod. Petitioners no.1, 2 and 3 have clean
antecedents, whereas, the petitioner no.4 has two criminal
antecedents under the Excise Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1447 of 2026(4) dt.21-04-2026
4/5
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case and the
fact that the petitioners no.1, 2 and 3 have clean antecedents, the
petitioners no.1, 2 and 3, above named, are directed to be
released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of their arrest or
surrender before the learned District Court within a period of
four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Buxar / Concerned
Court in connection with Buxar Muffasil P.S. Case No.
367/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
482(2) of the BNSS.
8. The learned District Court is directed to verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioners no.1, 2 and 3 and
if it is found that the petitioners no.1, 2 and 3 are involved
in some other cases, as what has been stated in paragraph
no.3 of the bail application, this order will automatically lose
its force.
9. So far as petitioner no.4 is concerned,
considering that against petitioner no.4 there are two cases
under Section 30 A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, I
am no inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to him, as the
attending circumstances shows that free fight took place because
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1447 of 2026(4) dt.21-04-2026
5/5
of objection made by the informant’s side and conduct of the
petitioner no.4 appears that he is engaged in illicit trade of
liquor.
10. The Investigating Officer concerned is directed to
forthwith take the petitioner no.4 into custody.
11. The bail application stands disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…