Patna High Court
Toofani RamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail should be granted, subject to conditions, as the FIR lacks specific details of injury and the petitioners have a clean antecedent.
Summary
The petitioners, Toofani Ram and Tara Devi, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in connection with a police case (No.73 of 2025) alleging assault on an informant and her daughter‑in‑law under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. They contended that the FIR did not specify how the alleged assault was committed, that no grievous injury was recorded, and that they have a clean criminal record. The State opposed the bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail subject to a cash bond, sureties, and conditions prescribed under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including personal appearance in court and verification of antecedents. The order emphasized that any observations made therein would not affect the trial. Consequently, the petitioners were released on anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners in light of the alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
- Does the FIR sufficiently disclose the particulars of the alleged assault to justify denial of bail?
- Do the petitioners' clean antecedent and lack of recorded injury merit the grant of anticipatory bail?
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 130(1), 3(5), 352, 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Criminal Procedure Code
- assault
- FIR
- bail conditions
- West Champaran
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2712 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-73 Year-2025 Thana- PIPRASI District- West Champaran
======================================================
1. Toofani Ram Son of Late Bachha Ram @ Bachcha Ram Resident of Village-
Chankuhawa, Police Station- Piparasi, District- West Champaran.
2. Tara Devi Daughter of Toofani Ram Resident of Village- Chankuhawa,
Police Station- Piprasi, District- West Champaran, permanent address- Tara
Devi, Wife of Manoj Bharati, resident of Village- Lakhsanahi, Police
Station- Dhanha, District-West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Milind Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Piprasi P.S. Case No.73 of 2025 registered for the offences
under Sections 130(1), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 352, 3(5)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. The allegation against the petitioners is that they
have assaulted the informant and the daughter-in-law of the
informant.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits
that from the mere perusal of the FIR, it would be evident that it
has not been stated as to by which means the petitioners had
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2712 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/3
assaulted the informant and her daughter-in-law. It has further
been submitted that the allegations of assault on the deceased
are on one Gyanti Devi, who is in custody. It has next been
submitted that from perusal of the impugned order, it would be
evident that no reference of any grievous injury or any injury
sustained by the informant or her daughter-in-law has been
referred to by the learned District and Sessions Judge. It has
lastly been submitted that the petitioners carry clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer
for anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, let the
petitioners above named be released on anticipatory bail, in the
event of arrest or surrender 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
Piprasi P.S. Case No.73 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2712 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
3/3
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 their bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below 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 court below shall take
step for cancellation of bail bond 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.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
allowed.
8. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made in
this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
U T
Checking your session…