Patna High Court
Rajesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, seven residents of Madhobigha, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in connection with a criminal case (PS No.416 of 2025) alleging offences under several sections of the Bihar Negotiable Securities Act. They claimed the FIR was filed two days after a land‑dispute‑related scuffle and that the informant, not they, attempted to occupy their land. The State opposed the bail. The court, noting the simple nature of injuries, the alleged after‑thought filing of the FIR, and the petitioners' varied criminal antecedents, granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., including surety bonds, presence in court, and verification of antecedents. The order stipulated cancellation of bail for non‑compliance or future similar offences. The application was disposed of, with the bail order effective upon arrest or surrender.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC in the present case
- Whether the circumstances of the FIR and the land‑dispute background justify granting bail despite pending criminal antecedents
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 482(2), 74
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Bihar Negotiable Securities Act
- land dispute
- FIR
- bail conditions
- Section 438
- Section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2590 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-416 Year-2025 Thana- NAWADA MUFFASIL District- Nawada
======================================================
1. Rajesh Kumar S/o Prabhu Dayal R/o Village - Madhobigha, P.S - Muffasil,
District - Nawada
2. Aman Kumar S/o Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Singh R/o Village - Madhobigha,
P.S - Muffasil, District - Nawada
3. Akash Kumar S/o Nityanand Kumar R/o Village - Madhobigha, P.S -
Muffasil, District - Nawada
4. Kundan Kumar S/o Dwarika Singh R/o Village - Madhobigha, P.S -
Muffasil, District - Nawada
5. Tipu Kumar S/o Dharmendra Kumar R/o Village - Madhobigha, P.S -
Muffasil, District - Nawada
6. Aman Kumar @ Kallu Kumar S/o Deepak Singh R/o Village - Madhobigha,
P.S - Muffasil, District - Nawada
7. Nityanand Kumar @ Nityanand Singh S/o Late Devendra Singh R/o Village
- Madhobigha, P.S - Muffasil, District - Nawada
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sheo Kumar Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Syed Mojibur Rahman, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 416 of 2025 registered for the
offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 74,
109, 352, 351(2) and 351(3) of the B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution story, the allegation against
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2590 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/4
the petitioners is that they have all assaulted the informant’s
side.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case on
account of land dispute pending between the parties. It has been
submitted that, in fact, it was the informant and others who were
trying to occupy the land by dispossessing the petitioners and
thereafter, a scuffle took place between the parties and from
perusal of the F.I.R, it would be evident that the same has been
well drafted as an afterthought and was lodged after two days of
the occurrence. It has further been pointed out that the injuries
sustained by all the persons were found to be simple in nature.
It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner no.1 carries two
criminal cases, petitioner no. 2 carries one criminal case,
petitioner no. 3 carries two criminal case, petitioner no. 5
carries one criminal case, petitioner no. 7 carries one criminal
case and petitioner nos. 4 and 6 carry clean antecedents.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid submission, facts and
circumstances of the case, let the petitioners above named be
released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2590 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
3/4
before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks
from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(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 Muffasil P.S. Case
No. 416 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with
corresponding Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S. as well as subject to
the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioners shall be
their close relative.
(ii) The petitioners shall remain physically present
in Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates, or
in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of
the petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the
Court concerned.
(iv) If the petitioners are found involved in similar
nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below shall verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2590 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
4/4
any stage it is found that the petitioners have
concealed their criminal antecedents, the court
below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond
of the petitioner. 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.
7. Accordingly, the present application stands
disposed of.
8. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
aditya/-
U
Checking your session…