Patna High Court
Md. AlamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to petitioner 1 but granted to petitioners 2 and 3 subject to bail bond and surety conditions.
Summary
The petitioners sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in an FIR alleging assault on an informant and his brother, with charges under several IPC sections. Petitioner 1 was specifically accused of assault with an iron rod causing a grievous injury to Md Moim, while petitioners 2 and 3 faced only vague or ornamental allegations. The State opposed the bail applications, emphasizing the seriousness of the injury to petitioner 1 and his prior criminal record. The Court rejected anticipatory bail for petitioner 1, finding the injury grievous and noting his antecedents. Conversely, the Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners 2 and 3, subject to a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties each, and conditioned on surrender within four weeks under Sections 438(2) and 482(2) of the CrPC.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner 1 despite allegations of grievous injury and prior criminal antecedents
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioners 2 and 3 given the general and omnibus nature of the allegations and the existence of a case‑and‑counter‑case
- Whether the conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) CrPC are applicable for granting anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438, 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 115, 117, 126, 127, 190, 191, 303, 351, 352, 76
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- grievous injury
- assault
- IPC sections
- CrPC Section 438
- CrPC Section 482
- bail bond
- sureties
- case and counter case
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25023 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-325 Year-2025 Thana- ALAMNAGAR District- Madhepura
======================================================
1. Md. Alam Son of Md. Jainul Resident of village - Laxminiya, Ward No.- 04,
P.S.- Alamnagar, District - Madhepura.
2. Md. Sofiyan Son of Md. Kudus Resident of village - Laxminiya, Ward No.-
04, P.S.- Alamnagar, District - Madhepura.
3. Md. Inaz Son of Md. Naiyam Resident of village - Laxminiya, Ward No.-
04, P.S.- Alamnagar, District - Madhepura.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Barun Kumar Singh
Mr. Kumar Praveen
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rabindra Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
2 01-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in a
case registered for the offence punishable under Sections
191(2), 190, 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109(1), 76, 303(2),
351(2), 352 of the B.N.S.
3. Petitioners are said to have assaulted the informant
with fists and legs. It is further alleged that they also assaulted
the brother of the informant by means of iron rod.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as
many as 15 persons were made accused in the First Information
Report out of whom final report was submitted in favour of ten
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25023 of 2026(2) dt.01-05-2026
2/3
of the accused persons. So far as these petitioners are concerned,
there is practically no specific allegation on petitioner no. 2 but
for his name being there in the FIR and with regard to petitioner
no. 3, there is only an ornamental allegation of snatching away
some money. The allegation on petitioner no. 1 is that of assault
by means of iron rod upon Md. Moim and on account of which
his hand was broken. It is further submitted that there is case
and counter case with regard to the same incident and the case
filed on the side of the petitioners are earlier in the point of time
and a perusal of the FIR itself indicates that the persons on the
side of the petitioners also sustained injuries. So far as the injury
of Md. Moim is concerned, it would appear from the bail
rejection order that he has sustained a grievous injury on his left
ulna but it has been submitted that the same is only non-vital
part of the body.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the
application for anticipatory bail.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and also considering the fact that the injury
attributed to petitioner no. 1 is grievous in nature coupled with
the fact that he also has criminal antecedents, I am not inclined
to enlarge the petitioner no. 1 on bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25023 of 2026(2) dt.01-05-2026
3/3
7. Accordingly, his prayer for anticipatory bail is
rejected.
8. So far as petitioners no. 2 and 3 are concerned, in
view of the general and omnibus nature of allegations coupled
with the existence of case and counter case, let the above named
petitioners no. 2 and 3, in the event of their arrest or surrender
before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks
from today, be enlarged on bail 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 Alamnagar P.S. Case No. 325 of 2025, subject to the
condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the
Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
devendra/-
U T
Checking your session…