Patna High Court
Abhishek Kumar @ Surendra KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail could be granted to petitioner No. 3 but must be denied to petitioners No. 1 and No. 2 due to the seriousness of the allegations involving a dangerous weapon.
Summary
The petitioners, Abhishek Kumar, Nagendra Mahto and Surjan Mahto, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to assault with a knife and iron rod. They claimed they have clean antecedents and alleged that the informant, an agnate, falsely implicated them over a dispute concerning the cutting of a Shisham tree on his land. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the use of a dangerous weapon and the seriousness of the injuries inflicted. The Patna High Court, after hearing counsel, granted anticipatory bail to petitioner No. 3 (Surjan) subject to a bond and sureties, but rejected the bail applications of petitioners No. 1 and No. 2. The order was made under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, reflecting the court’s view that the allegations against the first two petitioners warranted denial of bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita offences alleged.
- Whether the nature of the alleged assault with a knife and iron rod justifies denial of bail.
- Whether the underlying land dispute over a Shisham tree impacts the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 482(2), 74
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- assault
- dangerous weapon
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
- land dispute
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17870 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-548 Year-2025 Thana- BARUN District- Aurangabad
======================================================
1. Abhishek Kumar @ Surendra Kumar S/O Surjan Mahto @ Suranjan Mahto
R/O Village-Ratanpura, P.S- Barun, District-Aurangabad.
2. Nagendra Mahto @ Nagendra Singh S/O Balkeshwar Singh R/O village-
Mahuari, P.S - Barun, District-Aurangabad.
3. Surjan Mahto @ Suranjan Mahto S/O-Late Ramdeni Mahto R/O Village-
Ratanpura, P.S- Barun, District-Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Mukul Kumari
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shahabuddin Azeem @ S. Azeem
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 07-05-2026 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 126(2),
115(2), 74, 109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that he was getting Shisham tree cut on his land, when
accused persons came and Abhishek (petitioner no. 1) assaulted
him by knife causing injury on his back, thereafter Nagendra
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17870 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
2/3
(petitioner no. 2) assaulted by knife causing injury on hand,
while Surjan (petitioner no. 3) assaulted Sandip by an iron rod
causing injury on cheek and hand and Surjan along with Shanti
dashed Vimla on ground and Surjan assaulted by rod causing
injury on her head.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is next submitted that on account of dispute
relating to cutting of Shisham tree, the occurrence is alleged to
have taken place. It is further submitted that the informant and
the petitioners are agnates and the dispute is with respect to the
land on which Shisham tree is standing.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that there is
specific allegation against the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 of
assaulting the informant by knife causing injury, it is also
submitted that knife is a dangerous weapon, it is next submitted
that if there was a dispute, the parties could have tried to settle
the issue, but then using knife causing injury amply
demonstrates the mindset, but then is not in a position to rebut
the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners that Surjan is not alleged to have assaulted the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17870 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
3/3
injured by knife and the injury suffered on account of his assault
is simple in nature.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the petitioner no. 3 above-named, in the event of his 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) 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 Barun P.S. Case
No. 548 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
7. However, the Court is not inclined to extend the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner nos. 1 and 2.
Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner no.
1 and 2 is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U
Checking your session…