Patna High Court
Bachhu RamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to all petitioners subject to the stipulated conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, six residents of Deokuli village, sought anticipatory bail after a FIR was lodged alleging assault under IPC sections 147, 149, 504, 323, 307 and 325. The FIR was filed ten days after the alleged incident, which arose from a neighbour dispute, and the injuries were described as simple. A compromise petition indicated that the parties had resolved their differences and did not wish to pursue the case, and the petitioners had no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail, arguing that the injuries were to vital parts of the body. The Court, noting the general nature of the allegations against petitioners 2‑6 and the existence of a compromise for petitioner 1, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, a four‑week surrender period, and compliance with Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) BNSS, with the bond for petitioner 1 contingent on verification of the compromise.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners despite the FIR alleging assault under multiple IPC sections
- Whether the existence of a compromise petition and lack of criminal antecedent justify bail
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 149, 307, 323, 325, 504
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- compromise petition
- assault
- neighbour dispute
- IPC
- Section 438
- Section 482
- BNSS
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23464 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-308 Year-2024 Thana- BRAHMPUR District- Buxar
======================================================
1. Bachhu Ram S/o Late Raj Narayan Ram R/o Village - Deokuli, P.S -
Brahmpur, District - Buxar
2. Chhote Lal Ram S/o Late Parshuram R/o Village - Deokuli, P.S - Brahmpur,
District - Buxar
3. Chandan Devi @ Chanda Devi W/o Dharmendra Ram R/o Village -
Deokuli, P.S - Brahmpur, District - Buxar
4. Vidhyawati Devi W/o Late Raj Narayan Ram @ Rajaram Narayan R/o
Village - Deokuli, P.S - Brahmpur, District - Buxar
5. Dhanu Ram S/o Chhote Lal Ram R/o Village - Deokuli, P.S - Brahmpur,
District - Buxar
6. Shikari Ram @ Sanjay Ram @ Vijay S/o Chhote Lal Ram R/o Village -
Deokuli, P.S - Brahmpur, District - Buxar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
2 18-04-2026 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 147, 149,
504, 323, 307 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation in the First Information Report is
that the petitioners have assaulted the informant and her son.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits, at the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23464 of 2026(2) dt.18-04-2026
2/3
outset, that there is delay of ten days in lodging the First
Information Report, inasmuch as, the occurrence took place on
15.06.2024, while the FIR was registered on 25.06.2024. It is
further submitted that the petitioners and the informant are
neighbours and the incident took place on account of some
dispute between the parties. It has also been submitted that
although there is specific allegation against petitioner no.1,
namely, Bachhu Ram with regard to assault on the son of the
informant and there is general and omnibus allegations on all
the accused persons of having assaulted the informant, the
injuries sustained by both the informant and her son appears to
be simple in nature, as would be evident from the bail rejection
order itself. Learned counsel has also pointed out a compromise
petition, a certified copy of which is on record, wherein it has
been indicated that on the intervention of some well-wishers
both the sides have resolved their dispute and they did not want
to pursue the present case. Further, the petitioners have no
criminal antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the grant
of anticipatory bail on the ground that the injury sustained by
the injured persons are on the vital part of the body.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23464 of 2026(2) dt.18-04-2026
3/3
circumstances and considering the fact that so far as the
petitioner nos.2 to 6 are concerned, the allegations are general
and omnibus in nature and with regard to petitioner no.1,
although there is allegation of inflicting a blow on the child,
considering the compromise entered into between the parties, let
the above named petitioners, be released on bail, in the event of
their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
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
Brahmpur P.S. Case No. 308 of 2024, 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.
7. It is further made clear that the bail bonds of the
petitioner no.1 shall be accepted only after confirming the
authenticity of the compromise petition.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
U T
Checking your session…