Patna High Court
Phulgen Paswan @ Phulgain PaswanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court held that, in the absence of the petitioners' names in the FIR and given only general allegations, anticipatory bail is warranted subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, three residents of Mahinathpur, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case involving numerous offences under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the Arms Act. The FIR does not name them; their alleged involvement emerged later from CCTV footage, but no specific charge was framed against them. The State opposed bail, relying on the FIR allegations. The Court noted the absence of their names in the FIR and the presence of only general, omnibus allegations, and therefore granted them anticipatory bail, subject to a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, a relative as one bailor, and a condition to cooperate with the investigation, with cancellation possible upon non‑compliance. The order directs that bail be effected if they are arrested or surrender within four weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the petitioner is not named in the FIR but is later implicated through CCTV footage without specific allegations.
- Whether general and omnibus allegations in the FIR are sufficient to deny anticipatory bail.
- Whether conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) BNSS may be imposed on anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 121(1), 121(2), 126(2), 132, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 303(2), 351(2), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- FIR
- general allegations
- BNSS
- Arms Act
- bail conditions
- police assault
- mob violence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23472 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-172 Year-2025 Thana- BASOPATTI District- Madhubani
======================================================
1. Phulgen Paswan @ Phulgain Paswan S/O Ramsagar Paswan Resident of
Village- Mahinathpur, P.S- Basopatti, Distt.- Madhubani.
2. Rajendra Paswan S/O Dukhi Paswan Resident of Village- Mahinathpur, P.S-
Basopatti, Distt.- Madhubani.
3. Krishan Kumar S/O Bande Paswan Resident of Village- Mahinathpur, P.S-
Basopatti, Distt.- Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhavesh Kumar Sah, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, 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 191(2),
191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 303(2), 132, 121(1),
121(2), 352 and 351(2) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 23.07.2025 co-
accused Bharat Paswan was stopped by the constable Raju
Kumar Ram and a verbal scuffle took place between them and
the said Bharat Paswan called one Lal Mohan Paswan and 50-60
people gathered and the said group was led by co-accused Lal
Mohan Paswan. It is alleged that the mob pushed constable Raju
Kumar Ram and started abusing and assaulting him and in the
meantime, unknown persons fired upon constable with intention
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23472 of 2026(2) dt.18-04-2026
2/3
to kill. Thereafter, Raju Kumar Ram fired three rounds from his
rifle in his defence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, as
many as, 18 persons have been named in the First Information
Report along with 30-35 unknown persons who have been made
an accused in the present FIR with allegations of entering into a
verbal scuffle and then physical altercation with the police
personnel. So far as the petitioner is concerned, it has been
submitted that he has not been named in the FIR and his name
has transpired subsequently during the course of investigation
on the basis of CCTV footage, however, no specific allegation
has been attributed to the petitioner. It is further submitted that
other co-accused persons, namely, Raju Paswan and Ors. and
Puran Prasad Sah have been granted the privilege of
anticipatory bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 24.11.2025 and 01.04.2026 passed in Cr. Misc.
No.74796 of 2025 and Cr. Misc. No.18382 of 2026. It has also
been submitted that petitioners will not abscond and would
cooperate in the investigation.
5. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for
anticipatory bail on the basis of allegations made in the First
Information Report.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23472 of 2026(2) dt.18-04-2026
3/3
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and considering the fact that the petitioners are
not named in the First Information Report and more so, there are
general and omnibus allegations, 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
Basopatti P.S. Case No. 172 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…