Patna High Court
Mohd. Arman @ Mohd. Arman Ansari @ ArmanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail must be denied where the FIR contains a specific allegation of assault with a weapon and the petitioner has a pending criminal case.
Summary
Mohd Arman sought anticipatory bail after an FIR (Case No. 78 of 2025) alleged that he assaulted an informant with a knife, charging him under Sections 126, 115(2), 118, 109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner claimed innocence, arguing that the injuries were to a non‑vital part of the body and that he was falsely implicated. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the specific allegation of assault with a weapon and the petitioner’s pending criminal case. The Court examined whether the seriousness of the allegation and the petitioner’s antecedents justified denial of anticipatory bail. Concluding that the circumstances did not merit bail, the Court rejected the anticipatory bail petition but directed that if the petitioner surrenders within four weeks, the trial court should decide his surrender‑cum‑bail application on the merits.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case involving alleged assault with a weapon under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
- Whether the presence of a specific allegation and a pending criminal case precludes the grant of anticipatory bail
- Whether the trial court may entertain a surrender‑cum‑bail application after the anticipatory bail is denied
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 118, 126, 3(5), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- assault
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
- surrender-cum-bail
- section 126
- section 115(2)
- section 118
- section 109
- section 352
- section 351(2)
- section 3(5)
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26906 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2025 Thana- Mehsoul District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Mohd. Arman @ Mohd. Arman Ansari @ Arman Son of Md. Taslim Ansari
@ Taslim Ansari Resident of Village - Rajopatti (Chak Mahila), Ansari Road,
P.S.- Mehsaul, District - Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 22-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Mehsaul P.S. Case No. 78 of 2025 lodged on 08.07.2025,
for the offence punishable under Sections 126, 115(2), 118, 109,
352, 351 (2) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
pending in the Court of C.J.M., Sitamarhi.
3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against
11 named accused persons including the present petitioner and
10-12 unknown persons with allegation that they have assaulted
the informant and his brother, due to which, they sustained
injuries. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has
assaulted the informant by knife on his back.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26906 of 2026(2) dt.22-04-2026
2/2
submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this
case. He submits that the injuries are on non-vital part of the
body. Counsel also submits that the petitioner's side and the
informant’s side are resident of the same locality. He further
submits that the criminal antecedent of the petitioner is not clean
as there is one case pending against him.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
bail of the petitioner and submits that as per the FIR, there is
specific allegation against the petitioner to assault the informant.
6. As such, in the present facts and circumstances, this
Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly,
the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected.
7. However, if petitioner surrenders before the
concerned Trial Court within a period of 4 weeks from today
then in that case, the Trial Court is directed to pass order on his
surrender-cum-bail application on the same day, without being
prejudice that the anticipatory bail of the petitioner has been
rejected by this Court and the Trial Court shall pass order on the
merit of this case.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
U T
Checking your session…