Patna High Court

Deodas @ Raj Kumar @ Raja BabuversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 25 March 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: ANSHUMAN

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied because the petitioner’s pending criminal antecedents and the seriousness of the alleged offences warranted refusal of bail.

Summary

The petitioner, Deodas, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a FIR alleging extortion, assault, and several serious offences under the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act, 2023 and the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that six named and ten unknown accused, including the petitioner, demanded Rs.5 lakh and assaulted the informant. The petitioner claimed innocence, absence from the scene, and that his name was mentioned only on suspicion, while acknowledging two pending cases against him. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the petitioner’s criminal antecedent and the gravity of the charges. The High Court declined to grant anticipatory bail, directing that the trial court may consider a regular bail application if the petitioner surrenders within four weeks.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the nature of the alleged offences.
Whether the petitioner’s pending criminal cases and alleged involvement justify denial of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27
Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 109, 115(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 308(2), 308(3), 351(2), 352

Subjects

anticipatory bail
criminal antecedent
extortion
assault
bail jurisprudence
serious offences

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15890 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-400 Year-2025 Thana- AKHODHIGOLA District- Rohtas
                 ======================================================
                 Deodas @ Raj Kumar @ Raja Babu S/o- Ramesh Ram r/v- Nawadih Ps-
                 Akodhigola Dist- Rohtas
                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                            Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                             ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Bipin Kumar, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Narsingh Tanti, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   25-03-2026                      Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and

                   Learned APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection

                   with Akodhigola P.S. Case No.400 of 2025, for the offence

                   punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 109,

                   308(2), 308(3), 352, 351(2) of the BNS, 2023 read with section

                   27 of the Arms Act pending before the Court of Sub-Divisional

                   Judicial Magistrate, Dehri Rohtas.

                                3. As per the prosecution, the FIR has been lodged

                   against 6 named accused persons and 10 unknown accused

                   persons including the petitioner with allegation that they

                   demanded Rs.5 lac as extortion by the informant. Upon oppose,

                   they assaulted the informant due to which injury took place.

                                4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel

                   also submits that petitioner was not present on the place of
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15890 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
                                                       2/2




                     occurrence and his name has been transpired only on suspicion.

                     Counsel further submits that criminal antecedent of the

                     petitioner is not clean as there are two cases pending against

                     him.

                                  5. Counsel further submits that nothing incriminating

                     material has been recovered from the possession of the

                     petitioner and due to previous village enmity, the petitioner has

                     been dragged in this case.

                                  6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

                     bail of the petitioner and submits that criminal antecedent of the

                     petitioner is not clean as there are two cases pending against

                     him and this aspect must be taken into consideration.

                                  7. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is

                     not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the

                     prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

                                  8. However, trial court is directed to consider the

                     regular bail application of the petitioner, if he surrenders within

                     4 weeks from today and prays for regular bail, then trial court

                     shall pass order on merit without being prejudice of the present

                     order.



                                                             (Dr. Anshuman, J)
Prakashmani/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…