Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Sunil Ram @ Sunil Kumar RamversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The court held that, given the FIR delay, simple injuries, counter‑case and the petitioner’s clean record, anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is warranted.

Summary

Sunil Ram (Sunil Kumar Ram) applied for anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged alleging that he assaulted an informant with a farsa, causing head injuries. The dispute arose over a common passage and both parties belong to the Gotia community; a counter‑case shows the accused also suffered injuries. The FIR was filed three days after the incident and the petitioner has no prior criminal record. The court noted the delay in filing the FIR, the simple nature of the injuries, and the existence of a counter‑case as mitigating factors. Applying Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S., the court ordered anticipatory bail on the condition of a Rs 10,000 bond with two sureties and surrender within four weeks.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in view of the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the alleged offences
  • Whether the simple nature of injuries and the petitioner’s clean record justify bail

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • delay in FIR
  • simple injury
  • section 438 CrPC
  • criminal antecedent
  • counter case
  • Bihar criminal law

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2914 of 2026
                 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-238 Year-2025 Thana- CHANPATIA District- West Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Sunil Ram @ Sunil Kumar Ram S/o Late Badri Ram R/o Village - Puraina
                 Gosai (Kharg Pokhariya), P.S - Chanpatiya, District - West Champaran
                                                                               ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
                 The State of Bihar                                   ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Sarvesh Kashyap
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Umanath Mishra
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   28-01-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. and learned

                   Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

                                2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2),

                   115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 303(2), 352, 3(5) of the B.N.S.

                                3. Allegation in the first information report is that the

                   petitioner assaulted the informant on his head by means of farsa

                   causing injuries.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   present occurrence took place on account of a dispute with

                   regard to common passage and the petitioner side and the

                   informant side are both gotiyas. It has further been submitted

                   that there is a case filed on the side of the accused persons

                   Annexure-2 which discloses the factum of dispute between the

                   parties and injuries having been suffered even by the side of the

                   accused persons. It has also been submitted that as against
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2914 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026
                                                         2/2




                       specific allegation of assault by farsa, the injury report as

                       discussed in the bail rejection order would indicate that the same

                       are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object.

                       Furthermore, the FIR has also been lodged after a delay of three

                       days for which no explanation has been tendered.

                                    5.    Learned APP for the State has opposed the

                       application for anticipatory bail.

                                         6. Taking into consideration the facts and

                       circumstances and also considering the delay in the FIR, case

                       and counter case coupled with the simple nature of injuries, let

                       the above named petitioner, who has no criminal antecedent, in

                       the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court

                       below within a period of four weeks from today, be enlarged on

                       bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten

                       Thousand) 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 Chanpatiya P.S.

                       Case No. 238 of 2025, subject to the condition as laid down

                       under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.



                                                 (Soni Shrivastava, J)
devendra/-
U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.