Patna High Court
Mohit Sahani @ Mohit KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to payment of Rs.5,000 to the informant and compliance with conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Summary
The petitioners, Mohit Sahani and Prema Devi, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 238 of 2025 alleging assault, robbery and other offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The informant, Rupkanti Devi, claimed the petitioners assaulted her when she refused to sign a property document and subsequently stole Rs.20,000 and jewellery. The petitioners contended that the injury was simple, they had no criminal antecedent, and they were willing to compensate the informant Rs.5,000. The State opposed the bail, maintaining that the alleged offences were serious. The Court, considering the nature of the injury, lack of prior record and the petitioners' willingness to pay compensation, granted anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.5,000 payment to the informant and a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, imposing standard conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The order also stipulated compliance with investigation requirements and prohibitions against tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. in a case involving alleged assault, robbery and other offences?
- Whether the nature of the injury (simple) and lack of prior criminal record justify bail?
- Whether the petitioners' offer to compensate the informant influences the bail decision?
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- assault
- robbery
- bail conditions
- simple injury
- no prior record
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20836 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-238 Year-2025 Thana- GOVINDGANJ District- East
Champaran
======================================================
1. Mohit Sahani @ Mohit Kumar S/o- Mahesh Sahani R/v- Sareya Ps-
Gobindganj Dist- East Champaran
2. Prema Devi W/o- Mahesh Sahani R/v- Sareya Ps- Gobindganj Dist- East
Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs.Meena Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 08-04-2026 Heard Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for
the petitioners and the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in
connection with Govindganj Police Station Case No. 238 of
2025 for the offences punishable under sections 115(2), 126(2),
109, 303(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 lodged on 27.09.2025 by the informant, Rupkanti Devi.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that on 05.09.2025, as she was sitting at her door, the accused
persons wanted signature of the informant on property paper. On
refusal, the petitioner no.1 gave iron rod blow on her head
causing injury. As the husband came to rescue, Ranjan Kumar
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20836 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
2/4
and Prema Devi (petitioner no.2) entered the house of the
informant and took away Rs.20,000/- as also silver jewellery.
This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that so
far as the petitioner no.2 is concerned, ornamental allegation is
there about taking away of jewellery and money. So far as the
petitioner no.1 is concerned, the injury inflicted by him has been
found to be simple in nature.
5. Last submission is that Irrespective of the outcome
of the present case and/or accepting the allegation, the
petitioners intend to contribute Rs. 2500/- each (totalling
Rs.5000/-) to the lady informant through Demand Draft issued
by the local State Bank of India branch/Any Nationalized Bank
to be submitted before the concerned Court to be handed over to
the informant lady informant after checking the credential.
6. Learned counsel for the informant opposes the
prayer submitting that they wanted signature on the partition
paper and upon refusal, the assault took place.
7. Considering the submissions of the parties as also
that the injury has been found to be simple in nature, the
petitioner has no criminal antecedent, in that background, this
Court is inclined to extend them the privilege of anticipatory
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20836 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
3/4
bail subject to payment of Rs. 2500/- each (totalling Rs.5000/-)
to the lady informant through Demand Draft issued by the local
State Bank of India branch/Any Nationalized Bank to be
submitted before the concerned Court to be handed over to the
informant lady informant after checking the credential
8. Let the petitioners be released on bail, in the event
of their arrest or surrender before the concerned court within a
period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties
of the like amount each in connection with Govindganj Police
Station Case No. 238 of 2025 to the satisfaction of learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1st East Champaran,
Motihari or its successor court subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as also the other
conditions.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioners who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card/Driving License/Voter ID/Pan Card
etc.) to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) The petitioners shall be appearing before the
police station as and when required for cooperating in the
investigation;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20836 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
4/4
(iii) the petitioners shall appear on each and every
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iv) the petitioners shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioners shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U T
Checking your session…