Patna High Court
Kaushalya DeviversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail may be granted where the allegations against the petitioners are merely omnibus and not specific, subject to the conditions prescribed under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Summary
The petitioners, comprising Kaushalya Devi and several of her sons, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged by Vickey Kumar alleging a land‑related assault in which a sword blow caused injuries. The FIR, registered under sections 126(2), 115(2) and 118(1) of the Bihar Negotiable Substances Act (equivalent to IPC sections 341, 323, 324, 504 and 34), named all the petitioners, but the informant’s narrative focused on an assault by Chandan Kumar. The petitioners argued that the allegations against them were merely omnibus and that some of them were minors or students with no direct involvement. The State opposed bail, contending that the injuries could have been fatal if not promptly addressed. The court, agreeing with the petitioners’ counsel, held that the lack of specific allegations against the other accused justified granting anticipatory bail, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. Consequently, the court ordered anticipatory bail for each petitioner with a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, and a set of compliance conditions for a period of four weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. when the FIR contains only omnibus allegations against the petitioners.
- Whether the petitioners can be held liable under the specific sections of the B.N.S. and the corresponding IPC provisions.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 324, 34, 341, 504
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- omnibus allegation
- land dispute
- assault
- Section 438
- Criminal Procedure Code
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17499 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-206 Year-2025 Thana- PANDARAK District- Patna
======================================================
1. Kaushalya Devi W/o Chandrashekhar Prasad @ Chandrashekhar Saw R/o
Village - Rasulla, P.S - Pandarak, District - Patna
2. Chandrashekhar Prasad @ Chadrashekhar Saw S/o Suwa Saw R/o Village -
Rasulla, P.S - Pandarak, District - Patna
3. Munga Kumar S/o Chandrashekhar Prasad @ Chandrashekhar Saw R/o
Village - Rasulla, P.S - Pandarak, District - Patna
4. Rocy Kumar S/o Chandrashekhar Prasad @ Chandrashekhar Saw R/o
Village - Rasulla, P.S - Pandarak, District - Patna
5. Ravi Kumar S/o Chandrashekhar Prasad @ Chandrashekhar Saw R/o
Village - Rasulla, P.S - Pandarak, District - Patna
6. Vickky Kumar S/o Chandrashekhar Prasad @ Chandrashekhar Saw R/o
Village - Rasulla, P.S - Pandarak, District - Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Anjana, Advocate .
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Binod Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 25-03-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Pandarak P.S. Case No.206/25, registered U/S 126(2),
115(2),118(1).352. 3(5) of the B.N.S. equivalent to
341/323/324/504/34 of the I. P. C. lodged on 16.11.2025 by the
informant, Vickey Kumar.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17499 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
2/4
3. As per the FIR, the informant alleged that after
abuse, the accused persons resorted to assault and Chandan
Kumar gave sword blow causing injury to the informant on his
thumb. When the brother came to rescue, again the sword blow
was given which resulted into some injury. The dispute is land
related this led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
omnibus allegation has been made against all the accused
persons including the petitioner no.1 who is the lady. At best,
the allegation is made against Chandan Kumar and not against
these petitioners, some of whom are 19 years/21 years/students.
5. The informant is appearing and he has opposed the
bail submitting that but for the timely movement, the injuries
may have been fatal.
6. Considering the submissions of the parties, this
Court is in line with the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioners that at best the allegation is against Chandan Kumar
of assault, omnibus allegation against other accused, in that
background, this Court is inclined to extend them the privilege
of anticipatory bail.
7. Let the petitioners be released on bail, in the event
of their arrest or surrender before the concerned court within a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17499 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
3/4
period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties
of the like amount each in connection with Pandarak P.S. Case
No.206/25 to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M.-1st, Barh,
Patna subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as also the other conditions.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioners who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card/Driving License/Voter ID/Pan Card
etc.) to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) The petitioners shall be appearing before the
police station as and when required for cooperating in the
investigation;
(iii) the petitioners 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 their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iv) the petitioners shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioners shall desist from committing any
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17499 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
4/4
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U T
Checking your session…