Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Devendra PanditversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

Anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner with a bond of Rs.10,000, two sureties, and specific conditions of cooperation and a family member as bailor.

Summary

The petitioner, Devendra Pandit, was implicated in a case (Arwal P.S. Case No. 241 of 2024) involving offences under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 307, 379 and 504 of the IPC, where he allegedly assaulted the informant's wife with an iron rod and participated in a robbery. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, arguing that the injury was simple, the dispute was a private land issue, and he was a next‑door neighbor of the informant. The prosecution opposed the bail. The Court, considering the nature of the injury, the personal dispute, and the circumstances, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions of cooperation and a family member as a bailor. The order was made under Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 482(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Security Act. The bail is to be surrendered within four weeks if the petitioner is arrested.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the alleged offences and the nature of the injury.
  • Whether the conditions imposed under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S. are appropriate.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • IPC offences
  • land dispute
  • assault
  • theft
  • Section 438 Cr.P.C.
  • Section 482 B.N.S.S.

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19113 of 2026
                          Arising Out of PS. Case No.-241 Year-2024 Thana- Arwal District- Arwal
                 ======================================================
                 Devendra Pandit Son of Late Pradeep Pandit Resident of Village- Satpura,
                 P.S.- Arwal, District- Arwal

                                                                                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                         Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Om Prakash Om, Advocate
                 For the State            :        Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   06-04-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in

                   connection with Arwal P.S. Case No. 241 of 2024 in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 149,

                   341, 323, 307, 379 and 504 of the IPC.

                                 3. As per the prosecution story, on 24.06.2024, the

                   accused persons including the petitioner armed with iron rods

                   and sticks, assaulted the informant’s wife and mother-in-law.

                   During the attack, the petitioner inflicted a head injury on the

                   informant’s wife with an iron rod, while other accused persons

                   stole jewelry worth Rs. 30,000/- before fleeing.

                                 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is

                   evident from the First Information Report that as many as seven
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19113 of 2026(2) dt.06-04-2026
                                            2/3




          persons were named in the FIR, including the petitioner, who

          allegedly came variously armed and indulged in hurling abuses.

          Thereafter, the allegation against this petitioner is that he

          assaulted the wife of the informant by means of an iron rod. It is

          further submitted that the petitioner and the informant are next-

          door neighbors and there was a land dispute between them. The

          injury report of the informant’s wife indicates that the injury is

          in the nature of a laceration, and the same has been found to be

          simple in nature, caused by a hard and blunt substance.

                       5.    Learned APP for the State has opposed the

          application for anticipatory bail.

                    6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances

          and also considering the fact that the petitioner and the

          informant are neighbors having land dispute between them and

          the injuries are found to be simple in nature, let the above

          named petitioner, in the event of his arrest or surrender before

          the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from

          today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-

          (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

          each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the

          case is pending/successor court in connection with Arwal P.S.

          Case No. 241 of 2024, subject to the condition as laid down
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19113 of 2026(2) dt.06-04-2026
                                                         3/3




                       under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.,

                       subject to the conditions that:

                                    (I) One of the bailors will be a family member/close

                       relative.

                                    (II)    The      petitioner       shall    cooperate   in    the

                       investigation/trial      and     in     case    of     non-cooperation,   the

                       prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for

                       cancelling the bail bonds of the petitioner.



                                                  (Soni Shrivastava, J)
priyanka/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.