Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Deepak Madhesiya @ Deepak KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to a bond, sureties, and conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

Summary

The petitioner, Deepak Madhesiya, sought bail fearing arrest in a case alleging offences under Sections 137(2) and 140(3) of the B.N.S., 2023, relating to the disappearance of an informant's son who had been employed in his sweet shop. The son went missing on 28‑08‑2025, but the FIR was only lodged on 04‑01‑2026, raising a question of delay. The petitioner claimed he had promptly reported the disappearance on 30‑08‑2025, published notices, and that the matter had been compromised with the informant, with a compromise petition filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. He also asserted a clean criminal antecedent. The State opposed bail, but the court, noting the delay, the compromise, and the petitioner’s clean record, granted bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., including verification of antecedents.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail can be granted despite the delay between the disappearance and the lodging of the FIR.
  • Whether a compromise between the parties affects the court's discretion to grant bail.
  • Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and the conditions of Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. justify bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • delay in FIR
  • compromise petition
  • criminal antecedent
  • Section 482
  • B.N.S.
  • B.N.S.S.

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24428 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2026 Thana- KUCHAIKOTE District- Gopalganj
                 ======================================================
                 Deepak Madhesiya @ Deepak Kumar S/o- Omprakash Madhesiya Resident
                 of Village- Kuchaikote PS- Kuchaikote Dist- Gopalganj

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner      :       Mr. Adesh Raj Singh, Advocate
                 For the State           :       Mr. Madan Kumar, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   16-04-2026                  Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

                   learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

                   with Kuchaikote P.S. Case No.07 of 2026, for allegedly having

                   committed offences under Sections 137(2) and 140(3) of the

                   B.N.S., 2023.

                                3. As per the prosecution story, which has been lodged

                   by the informant inter alia, is that his son was working in the

                   sweet shop of the petitioner and he disappeared on 28.08.2025.

                                4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   although the son of the petitioner went traceless from

                   28.08.2025, but he lodged the present F.I.R. on 04.01.2026 and

                   no explanation has been given for the delay. He further submits

                   that the petitioner filed a Sanha before the Officer-in-Charge of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24428 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
                                            2/3




          the Kuchaikote police station on 30.08.2025 informing therein

          that the son of the informant went missing since morning of

          28.08.2025. He also published and pasted notice at public

          places, with regard to disappearance of the son of the informant

          and further the case has been compromised in between the

          petitioner and the informant, for which a compromise petition as

          well as a petition for permission to compromise has been filed

          in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj.

          It is further submitted that the petitioner has got a clean

          antecedent.

                       5. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer

          for bail of the petitioner.

                       6. Considering the rival submissions and after going

          through the records, it transpires that the F.I.R. has been lodged

          by the informant on 04.01.2026, although his son went missing

          on 28.08.2025 and further the informant has compromised the

          case with the petitioner and also filed a petition before the

          competent court for permission to compromise.

                       7. Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, let the

          petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender

          within a period of six weeks, be released on bail on furnishing

          bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24428 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
                                                           3/3




                         sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned

                         Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj in connection with

                         Kuchaikote P.S. Case No.07 of 2026, subject to the conditions

                         laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. with a further

                         condition that:-

                                      The learned court concerned shall verify the criminal

                         antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found

                         that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the

                         court concerned shall take steps for cancellation of bail bond of

                         the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bond in terms of

                         the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of

                         or in the name of verification.


                                                     (Ritesh Kumar, J.)

Sanjay/-

U          T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.