Patna High Court
Bipin kumar sahversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the petitioners, subject to a bond and verification of antecedents, under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Summary
Petitioners Bipin Kumar Sah and his son Suman Kumar sought bail after being implicated in a case alleging multiple offences under the B.N.S., 2023, stemming from a neighbour dispute. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners assaulted the informant and his wife, causing simple injuries, while the petitioners claimed innocence and highlighted a prior counter‑case they had filed. The court noted that the incident was a reciprocal fight and that the injuries were minor, and found no concealment of criminal antecedent. Relying on Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., the court ordered bail on the condition of a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties and verification of antecedents. The bail order was conditioned that any concealment of antecedent would lead to cancellation of the bond.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioners in view of the alleged offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 74, 303(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
- Whether the petitioners have concealed any criminal antecedent that would preclude bail.
- Whether the circumstances of a reciprocal fight justify the exercise of the court’s inherent powers under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. to grant bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 74
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Section 482
- reciprocal fight
- injury report
- antecedent verification
- B.N.S. 2023
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25719 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2026 Thana- KHANPURA District- Samastipur
======================================================
1. Bipin kumar sah Son of Late Ram Bilash Resident of Village- Samana
(Dera), Ward no. 5, Ps- Khanpur, Dist- Samastipur
2. Suman Kumar Suman @ Julesh Kumar Son of Bipin Kumar Sah Resident of
Village- Samana (Dera), Ward no. 5, Ps- Khanpur, Dist- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. At the outset, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners seeks permission for correction in
paragraph no.4 of the present petition as due to inadvertence,
instead of 27.12.2025, 27.12.205 has been typed.
3. Permission, so sought for, is accorded and let the
same be done during course of the day.
4. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Khanpur P.S. Case No.04 of 2026, for allegedly having
committed offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 74,
303(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25719 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/4
5. 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 27.12.2025, while the informant was on his
shop, all of a sudden, his neighbours including the petitioners
came there and stated abusing him and further started assaulting
his wife. Upon protest, the petitioner no.1 assaulted the
informant on his head due to which he suffered injuries. When
the neighbour of the informant, Dharmendra Ray came to save
him, the petitioner no.2 also assaulted him with iron rod due to
which he also suffered injuries.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any
offence. He further submits that a counter case has also been
lodged by the petitioner no.1 against the informant and others
bearing Khanpur P.S. Case No.02/2026, which has been lodged
before filing of the present First Information Report. It is further
submitted that the parties are neighbours and there is dispute in
between the parties from before. The petitioners have got clean
antecedent. He further submits that the petitioner no.1 is a
teacher in a High School and the petitioner no.2 is also a
government employee.
7. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25719 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
3/4
for bail of the petitioners.
8. Having Considered the rival submissions and after
going through the records, it appears that there was a free fight
in between the parties for which case and counter case were
lodged. Khanpur P.S. Case No.02/2026 was lodged by the side
of the petitioners and in retaliation, the present First Information
Report has been lodged by the informant. Further, from perusal
of the injury report, which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to
the present petition, it appears that the injuries sustained by the
informant are simple in nature.
9. Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, let the
petitioners, above-named, in the event of their arrest or
surrender within a period of six weeks, be released on bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Samastipur in
connection with Khanpur P.S. Case No.04 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 petitioners and in case at any stage it is found
that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25719 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
4/4
court concerned shall take steps for cancellation of bail bonds of
the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds 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…