Patna High Court
RAMAKANT KUMARversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that provisional anticipatory bail may be granted subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent and compliance with conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bihar Negotiable and Settlement Act.
Summary
The petitioner, Ramakant Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged alleging his involvement in a vehicular accident that injured the informant's sons. He claimed he was posted as a railway employee in Bengaluru at the time of the incident and presented attendance records and mobile tower data to support his alibi. The informant, an agnate with a property dispute against the petitioner, alleged that the petitioner’s family members were responsible for the accident. The State opposed bail, arguing the petitioner had a prior criminal case and might tamper with evidence, while the petitioner asserted he would cooperate with the investigation. The court granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition that the trial court verify the petitioner’s criminal antecedent and that the bail be confirmed only if he has no more than one prior case, invoking Section 482(2) of the Bihar Negotiable and Settlement Act.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances.
- Whether the petitioner has a clean antecedent sufficient to merit bail.
- Whether there is a risk of the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence.
- Whether Section 482(2) of the Bihar Negotiable and Settlement Act applies to the grant of provisional anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable and Settlement Act — s. 125, 2-6, 281, 324, 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal antecedent
- property dispute
- Section 482
- bail conditions
- alibi
- mobile tower location
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31739 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-125 Year-2025 Thana- TANKUPPA District- Gaya
======================================================
RAMAKANT KUMAR S/o- Rajo Singh R/v- Paharpur Ps- Tankuppa Dist-
Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Ankita Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 09-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P., Mr. Rabindra Kumar for the State and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 281/125,
(A)/125, (B)/324 and (2-6) of the BNS.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case as would manifest from the
pleading made in the supplementary affidavit, it is next
submitted that informant alleges that on 04.06.2025 at 6:00 AM,
her sons namely Santan and Ajeet were going to the Court on
motorcycle, when they were dashed by an unknown driver of a
Bolero vehicle near Bahera crossing and both suffered injury
and were admitted in a hospital and informant was informed by
a boy of Bahera village about the occurrence, the condition of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31739 of 2026(3) dt.09-07-2026
2/4
Santan is precarious.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR
was against unknown and during the course of investigation, the
name of the petitioner transpired along with his family
members. It is submitted that petitioner and informant are
agnates and are having dispute relating to property. It is further
submitted that petitioner is a railway employee and presently is
posted at Bengaluru and on the date of occurrence also the
petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence rather was
at Bengaluru as would manifest from his attendance register
annexed as Annexure P/2. It is also submitted that during the
course of investigation at Para 57 of the case diary, it has been
recorded that tower location of the mobile of the petitioner was
at Bengaluru. It is next submitted that name of the petitioner
transpired based on the statement of Santan after nine days of
the occurrence, wherein he disclosed that on orders of
Shashikant, the driver of the Bolero vehicle dashed him and his
brother. It is next submitted that Santan and Ajeet were going to
the court in respect of a case instituted by Rajo Singh, father of
the present petitioner. It is also submitted that petitioner is a
government servant and is aware of the consequences which
would entail, in the event, if he is involved in a criminal case.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31739 of 2026(3) dt.09-07-2026
3/4
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the anticipatory
bail application of the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel on behalf of the informant submits
that petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. It
is further submitted that initially when anticipatory bail
application was filed at Para 3, it was pleaded that petitioner is a
person with clean antecedent but subsequently a supplementary
affidavit was filed where in it was pleaded that petitioner has
antecedent of one case i.e., Gaya Muffasil PS Case No. 616 of
2021, when petitioner has antecedent of more than one case.
7. The learned APP for the State also opposes the
anticipatory bail application but then fairly submits that at Para
57 of the case diary, it has come that tower location of the
petitioner was at Bengaluru on the date of occurrence but then
petitioner came to implicated in the instant case based on
statement of injured Santan. It is further submitted that if
privilege of anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioner may
abscond or try to tamper with the evidence on which the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that if
privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the
petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31739 of 2026(3) dt.09-07-2026
4/4
investigation to prove his innocence and will not tamper with
the evidence.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or
surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released
on provisionally anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of
Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court
where the case is pending/successor court in connection with
Tankuppa P.S. Case No. 125 of 2025 subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 482 (2) of BNSS.
9. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial
Court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and
in the event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of more
than one case, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be
confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner has
antecedent of only one case in that event the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
rajesh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.