Patna High Court
Rishi Dev KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail subject to the conditions imposed under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Summary
Petitioners Rishi Dev Kumar and Sanjay Kumar applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered under several sections of the B.N.S., alleging assault with rods that caused injuries to several persons. They contend they have clean antecedents and were falsely implicated, highlighting a 33‑day delay between the alleged incident (06‑04‑2025) and the filing of the complaint (09‑05‑2025), and a further delay before the FIR was lodged (28‑08‑2025). The petitioners also argued that the injury reports were either manipulated or not properly linked to their alleged acts, and that one of the accused, Shatrughan, died due to assault by the informant’s side, which raises doubts about the FIR’s veracity. The State and the informant’s counsel opposed the bail but could not effectively rebut the petitioners’ contentions. The Court, after considering the submissions, directed that the petitioners be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing bail bonds and sureties, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., and the application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners despite the FIR alleging serious assault offences.
- Whether the delay in filing the complaint and FIR, and alleged manipulation of injury reports, warrant bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- assault
- FIR delay
- Section 482
- criminal procedure
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18974 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-371 Year-2025 Thana- MASHRAK District- Saran
======================================================
1. Rishi Dev Kumar Son of Ramnath Rai R/o Vilage - Dharmasati -
Gandaman(Dharmasati), Mashrakh, Dist - Saran, at Chapra.
2. Sanjay Kumar Son of Ramnath Rai R/o Vilage - Dharmasati -
Gandaman(Dharmasati), Mashrakh, Dist - Saran, at Chapra.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajit Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Mohammed Arif- A.P.P.
Mr.Suresh Pd Singh No.1
Mr.Aditya Raj
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 06-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109, 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5)
of the B.N.S.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the
informant alleges that on 06.04.2025 at 8.00 P.M., all accused
persons including the petitioners started constructing boundary
over her land. On objection, Rishi assaulted her son Lalan by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18974 of 2026(2) dt.06-04-2026
2/4
rod causing fracture of hand and Shatrughan assaulted Lalan by
rod causing injury on head and Sanjay along with Rishi
assaulted Santosh by rod causing injury on head while Ram
Nath assaulted Manju by lathi causing injury on head and the
injured were taken to hospital.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is next submitted that the instant FIR arises out
of a complaint. It is further submitted that date of occurrence is
06.04.2025 and the complainant filed a complaint case on
09.05.2025 i.e. after more than 33 days of the occurrence and
based on the said complaint the instant FIR came to be instituted
on 28.08.2025. It is further submitted that on date of occurrence
the side of the informant assaulted the side of the petitioners
leading to death of Shatrughan during the course of treatment
for which Mashrakh P. S. Case No.144 of 2025 was instituted. It
is next submitted that if what has been alleged in the FIR is a
correct fact, in that event, the fard-bayan of the injured would
have been recorded in the hospital, but then, it appears that the
FIR came to be instituted based on a written application of the
informant, who is not alleged to be an injured. It is next
submitted that no doubt, injury of the injured has been opined to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18974 of 2026(2) dt.06-04-2026
3/4
be grievous in nature, but then, the credibility of the injury i.e.
the injury was caused on account of assault made by the
petitioners or the injured suffered injury in some other manner is
an aspect of investigation. It is also submitted that petitioner
no.1 is alleged to have assaulted her son Lalan by rod causing
fracture of hand while Sanjay along with Rishi are alleged to
have assaulted Santosh by rod causing injury on head. It is
further submitted that the injury suffered by Lalan is on non-
vital part of the body and as far as Santosh is concerned, his
injury also has been opined to be grievous, but then, allegation
of assault is not specific rather it is alleged that Sanjay along
with Rishi assaulted him when he suffered only one injury. It is
further submitted that Shatrughan who is also an accused in the
instant FIR was assaulted brutally by the side of the informant
who died during the course of treatment.
5. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners submits that even the injury report of
the injured of the side of the informant is dated 06.04.2025 i.e.
the date of occurrence, on which the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners submits that the injury appears to be
manipulated or else the doctors would have informed the police
that on account of assault injured persons have been admitted.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18974 of 2026(2) dt.06-04-2026
4/4
6. Learned A.P.P. as well as the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the anticipatory
bail application, but then, are not in a position to rebut the
submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners that Shatrughan from the side of the petitioners died
during course of treatment on account of assault for which
Mashrakh P. S. Case No. 144 of 2025 was instituted.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners, above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of six weeks, are directed to be released on
anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in the sum 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
Mashrakh P. S. Case No.371 of 2025 arising out of Complaint
Case No.1066 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down
under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…