Patna High Court
Mukesh MandalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court held that given the petty dispute, mutual injuries, and absence of repeated assault, anticipatory bail was appropriate.
Summary
The petitioners, Mukesh Mandal and Puja Devi, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for alleged assault on an informant and his family. They contended that the FIR was lodged five days after the incident without justification and that the dispute arose from a minor quarrel over tying goats, with both sides filing counter‑cases. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the grievous nature of the injury to the informant, though acknowledging a simple injury to another victim. The Court examined the petty nature of the dispute, the presence of injuries on both parties, and the lack of repeated blows by the petitioners. Considering these factors, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs 10,000, two sureties, and conditions of cooperation with the investigation and a relative as a bailor.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) BNSS in view of the facts.
- Whether the five‑day delay in lodging the FIR warrants denial of bail.
- Whether the nature of the injuries (grievous vs simple) affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 482(2), 74
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- FIR delay
- mutual assault
- petty dispute
- bail conditions
- BNSS
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23269 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-936 Year-2025 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka
======================================================
1. Mukesh Mandal S/o- Arun Mandal Village- Mahota PS- Amarpur District-
Banka
2. Puja Devi w/o- Mukesh Mandal R/v- Mahota Ps- Amarpur Dist- Banka
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brij Nandan Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
2 10-04-2026 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), 109(1), 74, 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. The allegation in the First Information Report is
that the petitioners along with others have assaulted the
informant and his family members.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, at the
outset, that the First Information Report has been lodged after a
delay of five days for which no plausible explanation has been
tendered. It is further submitted that the petitioner no.1 is own
nephew of the informant and there was a dispute between them
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23269 of 2026(2) dt.10-04-2026
2/3
and the FIR discloses that a dispute had taken place with regard
to tying of some goats in the passage which was being opposed.
It has been further submitted that free fight had taken place
between both the sides and there is case and counter case and
both the sides filed case with regard to the same incident
(Annexure-3). In the FIR filed by the petitioner no.2 wherein
there is specific allegation that petitioner no.1 was assaulted by
the present informant by means of iron rod.
5. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for
anticipatory bail on the ground that the injury caused to the
informant is grievous in nature, however, the injury on Vishala
Devi is simple in nature. However, he does not dispute the fact
that there is single injury on the head of the informant with no
bony parenchymal lesion.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and considering the fact that the altercation
happened between the parties on a very petty dispute and also
considering the fact that there is case and counter case and
injuries on both the sides, coupled with the fact that there is no
repetition of blow on the part of the petitioner no.1, let the
above named petitioners, be released on bail, in the event of
their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23269 of 2026(2) dt.10-04-2026
3/3
period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each 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
Amarpur P.S. Case No. 936 of 2025, subject to the condition as
laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C/ Section 482 (2)
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023,
subject to condition(s) that:
(i) One of the bailors will be their own
blood relative.
(ii) The petitioners shall co-operate with the
investigation, if not already concluded and
make themselves available as and when so
required, failing which the prosecution will
be at liberty to move cancellation of their
bail bond.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
U T
Checking your session…