Patna High Court
Rabindra Parasad @ Rabind MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail is maintainable and the petitioners are entitled to it despite the addition of the non‑bailable offence.
Summary
The petitioners, four residents of East Champaran, sought anticipatory bail after a charge-sheet was filed under both bailable offences (Sections 341, 323, 504, 379, 506, 34 IPC) and the non‑bailable, aggravated offence of murder attempt (Section 307 IPC). They had earlier been released on bail when the FIR contained only bailable offences, but the police later added Section 307. The petitioners argued that the addition of a non‑bailable charge should not automatically strip them of the bail previously granted and relied on the Supreme Court decision in Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT Delhi. The State contended that the inclusion of Section 307 made the earlier bail entitlement lapse, making anticipatory bail appropriate. The High Court agreed with the petitioners, holding that anticipatory bail could be granted despite the later addition of a non‑bailable charge, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S. The court ordered that the petitioners be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing the required bond and sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the addition of a non‑bailable offence (Section 307 IPC) to a charge‑sheet defeats the bail previously granted for bailable offences.
- Whether anticipatory bail is maintainable under the changed circumstances.
- Whether the Supreme Court precedent in Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT Delhi applies to this situation.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 34, 341, 379, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- bail
- non‑bailable offence
- Section 307 IPC
- Indian Penal Code
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17761 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-515 Year-2020 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Rabindra Parasad @ Rabind Mahto son of Late Manager Mahto @ Manger
Prasad Resident of Village- Hasuaha, P.S. -Govindpur, District -East
Champaran
2. Mala Devi wife of Rabindra Prasad @ Rabindra Mahto Resident of Village-
Hasuaha, P.S. -Govindpur, District -East Champaran
3. Ramesh Kumar @ Ramesh Prasad son of Late Manager Prasad @ Manager
Mahto Resident of Village- Hasuaha, P.S. -Govindpur, District -East
Champaran
4. Gudiya Kumari @ Gudiya Devi Wife of Ramesh Kumar Resident of
Village- Hasuaha, P.S. -Govindpur, District -East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nafisu Zzoha, Advocate
Mr. Nasar Iqbal, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 11-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323,
504, 379, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and petitioners no.
2 and 4 are women and the informant alleges that on
04.12.2020, at 06:30 a.m., his son went to attend the call of
nature on his land when his agnates Ramesh (petitioner no. 3)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17761 of 2026(2) dt.11-05-2026
2/5
and Rabindra (petitioner no. 1) came and assaulted his son by
fists and Rabindra assaulted the informant by rod causing injury
on leg and Rajendra assaulted his wife by farsa causing injury
on head and Ramesh snatched the chain of his wife and Mala
(petitioner no. 2), Gudiya (petitioner no. 4) and Anju also
assaulted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would
manifest that no specific allegation of assault is alleged against
the women accused. It is further submitted that Ramesh and
Rabindra are alleged to have assaulted the son of the informant
by fists and thereafter, Rabindra assaulted the informant by rod
causing injury on leg and Rajendra is alleged to have assautled
the wife of the informant causing injury on head. It is next
submitted that initially when the FIR was instituted, the same
was under bailable sections of the Indian Penal Code, as such,
the petitioners were to be enlarged on bail as a matter of right,
hence, the petitioners appeared before the learned Trial Court
and were released on bail but, thereafter, the police investigated
the case and submitted charge-sheet on 30.12.2021 under
various bailable sections of the Indian Penal Code inlcuding
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, as such, the charge-sheet
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17761 of 2026(2) dt.11-05-2026
3/5
was submtited with respect to an aggravated offence which was
not part of the initial FIR. It is also submitted that petitioners
never received any summons nor there is any service report on
record suggesting that summons were served on the petitioners.
It is submitted that even the police, during the course of
investigation, did not make any endeavours to arrest the
petitioners but, after charge-sheet was submitted, the petitioners,
on receiving bailable warrant of arrest on 03.09.2025, came to
know that charge-sheet has been submitted under Section 307 of
the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that petitioners
and the informant are agnates and, on account of dispute
relating to land, the occurrence is alleged to have taken place. It
is next submitted that even the injury suffered by the injured has
been opined to be simple in nature, except one injury of the wife
of the informant, which was caused on account of assault made
by Rajendra who is not a petitioner in the instant case.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying on a
judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prahlad
Singh Bhati v. NCT Delhi reported in (2001)4 SCC 280
wherein it has been held that with the addition of a new
cognizable and non-bailable offence, the accused person
becomes disentitled to the liberty earlier granted in relation to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17761 of 2026(2) dt.11-05-2026
4/5
the offences for which the FIR came to be instituted, hence, the
correct approach would be to apply mind afresh as to whether
the accused persons are entitled for grant of bail in the changed
circumstnaces or not.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, thus, submits
that under the changed circumstances, the anticipatory bail
would be maintainable as the petitioners, who were earlier
enlarged on bail was with respect to bailable offence and in
terms of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The
petitioners became disentitled to the liberty earlier granted in
relation to the offences for which the FIR came to be instituted,
if aggravated offences are added later.
7. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that from the
order impugned, it would manifest that the learned District
Court has not entertained the anticipatory bail application on the
ground that petitioners earlier were granted the privilege of bail
by the learned Trial Court when the FIR came to be instituted on
which learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
reiterates and submits that earlier the FIR was instituted with
respect to bailable offences and the petitioners were granted the
privilege of bail as a matter of right subsequently when the
charge-sheet was submitted, it was in respect of an aggravated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17761 of 2026(2) dt.11-05-2026
5/5
offence, i.e., Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code in which
cognizance was also taken, hence, the petitioners became
disentitled for the relief granted earlier, hence, the anticipatory
bail application is maintainable and the persons who is alleged
to have assaulted the wife of the informant causing grievous
injury is not a petitioner in the instant anticipatory bail
application.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is in complete agreement with the submissions made
by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, let
the petitioners, above-named, in the event of their arrest or
surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released
on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where
the case is pending/Successor Court in connection with Harsidhi
P.S. Case No. 515 of 2020, subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.