Patna High Court
Bhola Bhagat @ Bhola SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to conditions, as the injury was not attributable to him and he has a clean antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Bhola Bhagat, sought bail after being implicated in a land‑dispute incident where he was alleged to have pressed the informant's neck with a towel, causing a fracture of the right femur. The prosecution alleged multiple offences under the Bihar Negotiable Statutes (B.N.S.) 2023, while the petitioner claimed a clean antecedent and disputed the attribution of the injury. The court noted that the injury, though grievous, was not caused by the petitioner and did not affect a vital part of the body. Considering the long‑standing land dispute and lack of prior criminal record, the court exercised its power under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. to grant bail. Bail was conditioned on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and verification of the petitioner’s antecedent, with cancellation possible if concealment is discovered.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. despite allegations of grievous hurt.
- Whether the injury sustained by the informant can be attributed to the petitioner for the purpose of bail denial.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- land dispute
- grievous hurt
- Section 482
- criminal antecedent
- assault
- injury attribution
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25687 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2026 Thana- MUSAHARI District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Bhola Bhagat @ Bhola Singh Son of Late Ramsurat Bhagat Resident of
Village- Nawada, P.S.- Mushahari, District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Purushottam Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Somali Acharya, Advocate
Ms. Sushmita Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Brahmaputra Singh Ishu, Advocate
Ms. Poonam Kumari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
A.P.P. appearing for the State and the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Musahari P.S. Case No.8 of 2026, for allegedly having
committed offences under Sections 329(3), 126(2), 115(2), 109(1),
118(1), 117(2), 303(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. As per the prosecution story, which has been lodged
on the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, to the
effect that on 05.01.2026, at about 10:00 a.m, his co-villagers,
including the petitioner came armed with an intention to capture
the land, which is situated about 200 meters from his house. When
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25687 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/4
the informant went to his land, all the accused persons started
abusing him. On his protest, accused, Prabhat Kumar ordered to
kill the informant, upon which, all the accused persons started
assaulting the informant with Lathi and Danda. The allegation
against the petitioner is that he pressed the neck of the informant
with a towel and on Hulla, when the local people came there, all
the accused persons fled away. Thereafter, the informant was
brought to Primary Health Centre, Mushahari and from there, he
was taken to S.K.M.C.H., Muzaffarpur where he gave his
fardbeyan.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
there is dispute in between the parties for 7 decimals of land,
which the petitioner’s family purchased and planted trees about 20
years back. There is case and counter case in between the parties
and Aarti Kumari, wife of one Sudhakar Kumar (co-accused) also
lodged Mushahari P.S. Case No.10 of 2026 for the same
occurrence. It is further submitted that the petitioner has got a
clean antecedent.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant oppose the prayer for
bail of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the informant
submits that the petitioner had pressed the neck of the informant
with his towel, which caused serious injuries to him. It is further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25687 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
3/4
submitted by the learned counsel for the informant that the injury
suffered by the informant has been opined to be grievous in nature
and the petitioner does not deserve bail.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
after going through the records, it appears that there is land dispute
in between the parties from before and for the same occurrence
dated 05.01.2026, case and counter case have been lodged by both
the parties. Further, from the impugned order, passed by the
learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur, it
appears that the injury sustained by the informant has been found
to be fracture of right femur, which is opined to be grievous in
nature. The said injury is not attributed to the petitioner and is also
not on the vital part of the body.
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 sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Muzaffarpur (East) in connection with
Musahari P.S. Case No.8 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25687 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
4/4
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
Checking your session…