Patna High Court
RajKumar RajakversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail may be granted to petitioner no. 2 but not to petitioner no. 1 under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
The petitioners, RajKumar Rajak and Pawan Rajak, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS. The petitioners alleged that they were falsely implicated in a land‑dispute altercation and that the injuries claimed by the informant were either non‑existent or not life‑threatening. The State opposed the bail, contending that the injuries were dangerous to life and that the petitioners were involved in a violent assault. The Court, after hearing both sides, granted anticipatory bail to petitioner no. 2 (Pawan Rajak) upon furnishing a bail bond and sureties, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. However, the Court declined to extend anticipatory bail to petitioner no. 1 (RajKumar Rajak), finding the allegations against him sufficient to deny the relief.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner no. 1 under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner no. 2 under Section 482(2) of the BNSS despite the alleged assault.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482
- criminal procedure
- false implication
- assault
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19640 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-166 Year-2025 Thana- BARHAT District- Jamui
======================================================
1. RajKumar Rajak S/o Klit Rajak @ Kalit Rajak R/o Village - Tetariya, P.S -
Barhat, District - Jamui
2. Pawan Rajak S/o Kartik Rajak R/o Village - Tetariya, P.S - Barhat, District -
Jamui
... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 07-04-2026 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), 117(2), 109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of BNS.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of two cases but then he was
acquitted in one case and petitioner no. 2 is a person with clean
antecedent and the informant alleges that accused persons
including the petitioners came on 09.11.2025 at 04:00 PM and
started abusing, on objection, Rajkumar (petitioner no.1)
assaulted the informant by rod causing injury on head while
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19640 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
2/3
Pawan Rajak (petitioner no. 2) assaulted him by khanti causing
injury over the ear, thereafter, Nandu assaulted Naresh by farsa
causing injury on head while Bhagirath assaulted Naresh by
stone causing injury on hand, thereafter Ranjan and Ravindra
assaulted Mithilesh by kudal and lathi and Ashok assaulted
Babita on chest and other part of the body by lathi while
Mukesh Rajak assaulted Mukesh Kumar by lathi.
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 land an altercation had taken place and both side
assaulted each other. It is further submitted though it is alleged
that petitioner no. 2 assaulted the informant by khanti causing
injury over the ear but then no injury over the ear was found.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that the injury
suffered by the informant has been opined to be dangerous to
life as has been recorded in the order impugned. It is also
pointed out based on the pleadings made in the anticipatory bail
application that the order impugned wrongly records the name
of informant as Manish, but then is not in a position to rebut the
submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19640 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
3/3
that no injury over the ear of the informant was found.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties, the petitioner no. 2, 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 Barhat
P.S. Case No. 166 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
7. The Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner no. 1, namely, Rajkumar
Rajak.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.