Patna High Court
Sudhir RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
Sudhir Rai applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case involving alleged assault, injury, and theft linked to a long‑standing land dispute. The prosecution alleged that he, along with co‑accused, assaulted the informant’s husband with a bamboo lathi, caused injuries, and stole jewellery. The petitioner argued that the injuries were minor, the dispute was civil in nature, and he was willing to cooperate, despite having three prior criminal cases. The court examined the seriousness of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the provisions of Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Finding that the petitioner’s claim of innocence and the simple nature of injuries outweighed the prosecution’s concerns, the court granted anticipatory bail with a cash bond, sureties and strict conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in view of the alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 110, 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 303(2), 3(5), 352
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- assault
- land dispute
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 438
- Section 482
- theft
- violence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30847 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2026 Thana- KALYANPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
Sudhir Rai S/o Sahdev Rai R/o Village- Simaria Bhindi, Tola Sedhi, P.S.-
Kalyanpur, District- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Ataur Rahman, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 06-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Kalyanpur P.S. Case No.28 of 2026, F.I.R dated
26.01.2026 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 126(2), 115(2), 303(2), 110, 352, 127(2) and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, on 24.01.2026 at
about 7:00 A.M., when the father-in-law of the informant was
sitting at the door of the house, all the accused persons including
the petitioner arrived there and started abusing him. When the
informant’s husband objected, the accused persons stated that he
was not allowing compromise in Kalyanpur P.S. Case No.
37/2019. Thereupon, the informant’s husband, Navin Kumar,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30847 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
2/4
stated that compromise could not be forced through assault with
lathi. It is alleged that the petitioner, with intention to kill,
repeatedly assaulted Navin Kumar with a dry bamboo lathi,
causing injury to his right hand. It is further alleged that
Navinita Kumari assaulted him on his right eye with a dry
bamboo, resulting in fracture of the eyebrow. When the
informant intervened to rescue her husband, co-accused Renu
Devi and Sweta Kumari caught hold of her hair, pushed her to
the ground and assaulted her with bricks. Further allegation
against co-accused Sweta Kumari is that she snatched the
informant’s golden jhumka worth Rs.4 lakhs, while co-accused
Renu Devi took away silver payal worth Rs.15,000/-.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both
the parties are full brothers and there are several cases and
counter cases between them on the issues of long standing land
dispute, and though, there is allegation of assaulting the
informant on his head, the injuries have been found to be simple
in nature and the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the
investigation as and when required. It is next submitted that
petitioner has three criminal antecedent but is on bail in all the
said cases.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30847 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
3/4
anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that the petitioner is innocent, there are several cases and
counter cases between them on the issues of long standing land
dispute and the injuries sustained by the informant is simple in
nature. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege
of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of
his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Samastipur, in connection
with Kalyanpur P.S. Case No.28 of 2026, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the family
member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide
official document/personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30847 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
4/4
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(v) the petitioner(s) shall maintain peace and harmony
with the informant and in case of there being any allegation of
committing the similar offence and, on finding substance in
such allegation, the Police or the informant will be at liberty to
take recourse for cancellation of the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
sharun/-
U T
Checking your session…