Patna High Court
Randhir KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The court held that, given the lack of specific allegations against the petitioners and the circumstances of the case, bail may be granted under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Summary
The petitioners, five villagers, sought bail fearing arrest in a case registered under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for alleged assault, robbery and attempted outrage of modesty. The prosecution alleged that the accused entered the informant's house armed, with co‑accused Anil Ray injuring the informant with an iron rod and Sunil Kumar attempting to outrage her modesty, while petitioner No.2 allegedly snatched a gold mangalsutra. The petitioners contended they were falsely implicated due to village enmity, that no specific charge of assault was made against them, and that the FIR was lodged five days after the incident without justification. The State opposed bail. After considering the facts, the court found insufficient material to justify continued custody and, invoking Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, ordered bail on bond with sureties and conditions. The bail order was conditioned on surrender within six weeks and compliance with the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate‑II, Danapur.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to bail under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita despite the serious charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the absence of specific allegations against the petitioners warrant the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 115(2), 117(2), 118(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 74
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- assault
- robbery
- attempted outrage of modesty
- FIR delay
- village politics
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26025 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-638 Year-2025 Thana- BIHTA District- Patna
======================================================
1. Randhir Kumar S/o Chhote Lal Rai R/o Village - Hiramanpur, P.S - Bihta,
District - Patna
2. Rijan Kumar @ Niranjan Kumar S/o Ram Bahadur Rai R/o Village -
Hiramanpur, P.S - Bihta, District - Patna
3. Vikash Kumar S/o Bhola Rai R/o Village - Hiramanpur, P.S - Bihta, District
- Patna
4. Ranjit Kumar S/o Loha Rai R/o Village - Hiramanpur, P.S - Bihta, District -
Patna
5. Rinku Kumar S/o Rambahadur Rai @ Rambabu Rai R/o Village -
Hiramanpur, P.S - Bihta, District - Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Pawan Kumar Chaurasia, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 118(2), 74,
303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. As per prosecution case, all the accused persons
including the petitioners, armed with lathi-danda and iron rod,
entered in the house of the informant and it is alleged that co-
accused Anil Ray assaulted the informant with iron rod due to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26025 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/3
which her right leg became fractured. Co-accused Sunil Kumar
tried to outrage the modesty of the informant and petitioner no.
2 snatched gold mangalsutra from the neck of the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the
present case due to previous enmity and dirty village politics.
Further submission is that there is no specific allegation against
the petitioner of assaulting the prosecution. Specific allegation
is against co-accused Anil Ray of causing injury with the iron
rod on the informant. Both the parties are co-villagers. There is
case and counter case between the parties. He next submits that
the F.I.R. has been lodged after a delay of 5 days without any
plausible explanation. Petitioner nos. 2, 3 & 4 have no criminal
antecedent, whereas petitioner no. 1 has two criminal
antecedents and petitioner no. 5 has one criminal antecedent, in
which they are on bail. Petitioners undertake to cooperate in the
investigation and trial.
5. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State
opposed the bail application.
6. Having considered the facts and circumstances
of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and
nature of allegation against the petitioners, let the above named
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26025 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
3/3
petitioners be released on bail, in the event of arrest or surrender
before the learned court below within a period of six weeks
from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II,
Danapur in connection with Bihta P.S. Case No. 638 of 2025,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of
the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-
U T
Checking your session…