Patna High Court
Amit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners as there is no specific allegation of overt act against them and the injuries are not to a vital part of the body.
Summary
The petitioners, Amit Kumar and his father Anil Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR (Case No. 355 of 2025) alleged their involvement in a violent assault on the informant’s father‑in‑law and his wife, with charges under several sections of the Bihar Negotiable Sale Act. The prosecution alleged that a group of accused, including the petitioners, attacked the victims with an iron rod and bricks, causing injuries to the hand, leg and stomach, though the FIR did not specifically attribute any overt act to the petitioners. The petitioners argued that no overt act was assigned to them, the injuries were not to a vital part of the body, and their prior criminal cases were pending on bail. The State opposed anticipatory bail, citing the petitioners’ serious criminal antecedents. The Court, noting the lack of specific allegation of overt act against the petitioners and the nature of the injuries, exercised its power under Section 482(2) to grant anticipatory bail with strict conditions. The order directed the petitioners to furnish a bail bond of Rs.10,000 each with two sureties and comply with conditions regarding court appearances, non‑interference with witnesses, and refraining from further offences.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners in view of the absence of a specific allegation of overt act against them
- Whether the nature of the alleged injuries and the petitioners’ prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Sale (BNS) — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 303(2), 329(4), 351(3)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482(2)
- overt act
- grievous injury
- criminal antecedents
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15662 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-355 Year-2025 Thana- MADANPUR District- Aurangabad
======================================================
1. Amit Kumar S/o Anil Yadav R/o Village - Munshi Bigha, P.S - Madanpur,
District - Aurangabad
2. Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Yadav @ Anil Yadav S/o Late Pratap Yadav R/o
Village - Munshi Bigha, P.S - Madanpur, District - Aurangabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bhaskar Shankar Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Bharat Bhushan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 29-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Madanpur P.S. Case No. 355 of 2025 for the
offence punishable under sections 109, 303(2), 191(2), 190,
329(4), 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 351(3) of the BNS lodged on
29.08.2025 by the informant.
3. As per the prosecution case, the allegation against
the petitioners is that they along with other four accused persons
came on motorcycles to the door of informant’s father-in-law
and started abusing him as well as assaulted him by means of
iron rod due to which his hand, leg and stomach got injured. It
is further alleged that when Gotni of informant, namely,
Sarswati Devi came to rescue her father-in-law, she was also
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15662 of 2026(3) dt.29-04-2026
2/4
abused and assaulted. Thereafter, ten other accused persons
joined them and all started throwing bricks on them due to
which, the informant and her Gotni receive injuries.
Accordingly, the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners no. 1 and 2 are son and father respectively and from
the FIR itself, it is evident that no role of any overt-act has been
assigned to these petitioners while the other co-accused, namely,
Dinesh Yadav is said to have inflicted injuries on the hand, leg
and stomach of one Balkeshwar Yadav, father-in-law of the
informant. The allegation against these petitioners are general
and omnibus in nature. The injuries which have been found to
be grievous in nature is on the hand of Balkeshwar Yadav which
is not a vital part of the body. It is further submitted that though
the petitioners have two criminal antecedents but they are on
bail in those cases.
5. On the other hand, learned APP vehemently,
opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners
submitting that both the petitioners have criminal antecedents
of serious nature and they do not deserve the privilege of
anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the submissions of the parties and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15662 of 2026(3) dt.29-04-2026
3/4
there is no specific allegation of overt-act against these
petitioners while the allegation of overt-act is upon one another
co-accused, Dinesh Yadav, and the injury is not on the vital part
of the body, this Court is inclined to extend them the privilege of
anticipatory bail.
7. Let the petitioners, above named, be released on
bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of six
weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of
Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Aurangabad 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.15662 of 2026(3) dt.29-04-2026
4/4
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.