Patna High Court
Kamlesh RamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners 1 and 3 subject to conditions and dismissed petitioner 2's application as withdrawn.
Summary
The petitioners Kamlesh Ram and Reema Bharti applied for anticipatory bail in connection with PS Nautan case No.149 of 2025, where they were alleged to have participated in a violent assault and looting. Their co‑accused Parmatma Ram withdrew his anticipatory bail application, which the court dismissed as withdrawn and directed him to surrender. The court examined the FIR under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, noting that the alleged fatal injury was attributed to the withdrawn petitioner, while the injuries to other victims were deemed simple and the allegations against the remaining petitioners were general. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners 1 and 3 subject to strict conditions under Section 438 of the CrPC and Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and ordered them to surrender within thirty days. The order also stipulated bail bond requirements and conditions to prevent tampering with evidence or further offences.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioners Kamlesh Ram and Reema Bharti despite the FIR allegations.
- Whether the withdrawal of Parmatma Ram's anticipatory bail application warrants dismissal of his application.
- Whether the allegations against petitioners 1 and 3 are specific enough to deny anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 74
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 438
- Section 482
- bail conditions
- withdrawal of application
- general allegations
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3210 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-149 Year-2025 Thana- NAUTAN District- Siwan
======================================================
1. Kamlesh Ram S/o Gulab Ram R/o Village - Baluwa, P.S - Nautan, District -
Siwan
2. Parmatma Ram S/o Gulab Ram R/o Village - Baluwa, P.S - Nautan, District
- Siwan
3. Reema Bharti @ Reema Devi W/o Parmatma Ram R/o Village - Baluwa, P.S
- Nautan, District - Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Pandey
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 20-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. As both the bail applications arise out of the same
police station case number, and with the consent of the parties,
they are being heard together and disposed of by this common
order.
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner
seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application
with respect to petitioner No.2.
4. Permission is accordingly granted.
5. Considering the aforesaid submissions, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3210 of 2026(3) dt.20-02-2026
2/5
anticipatory bail application with respect to petitioner No.2
stands dismissed as withdrawn and the petitioner is directed to
surrender before the Trial Court within a period of four weeks
from today and it is expected that on surrender, his regular bail
application will be heard on merits.
6. Now, the anticipatory bail application with respect
to petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 is being considered.
7. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Nautun P.S. Case No.149 of 2025, F.I.R dated
24.06.2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109, 74, 303(2), 352, 351(2)
and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
8. According to prosecution case, on 20.06.2025 at
about 4:00 P.M., the informant was at her house when several
co-villagers, namely Parmatma Ram, Dwarika Ram, Kamlesh
Ram, Reema Devi, Rajmatiya Devi, Shanti Devi, Sona Devi,
Chandi Devi, Kavita Kumari, Babita Kumari, and Punam Devi,
allegedly arrived armed with deadly weapons and began
demolishing her hut. When the informant and her family
members tried to stop them, the accused persons assaulted them.
Parmatma Ram allegedly attacked the informant’s mother-in-
law, Suganti Devi, on the head with a Farsa. Other accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3210 of 2026(3) dt.20-02-2026
3/5
persons assaulted the victims with lathis. When the informant
attempted to rescue her mother-in-law, she was also beaten.
Additional family members who came to help were similarly
assaulted, and one of them was struck on the head with a Farsa.
It is further alleged that the accused snatched gold chains from
the informant and Leelawati Devi and looted household articles.
The injured persons were later admitted to the hospital for
treatment.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to
the contents in the F.I.R., submits that the allegations of overt
act leading to death of mother-in-law of the informant is against
petitioner No.2, who has already withdraw his anticipatory bail
application and with regard to petitioner Nos.1 and 3, the injury
report, which suggests that the injury is simple in nature and
does not support the allegations levelled against them and
therefore, the privilege of anticipatory bail may be extended.
10. Learned counsel for the informant and learned APP
for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail
application and learned counsel for the informant has
categorically stated that there has been death is caused pursuant
to the injuries received by the mother-in-law of the informant.
11. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3210 of 2026(3) dt.20-02-2026
4/5
that the overt act leading to death of the mother-in-law of the
informant is against petitioner No.2, who has already withdraw
his anticipatory bail application and the injuries being caused to
the family members of the informant by petitioner Nos.1 and 3
are simple in nature and there is no specific allegation levelled
against petitioner Nos.1 and 3 rather the allegations are general
and omnibus in nature. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to
grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
12. Let petitioner Nos.1 and 3, above named, in the
event of their 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 J.M., Siwan, in connection with
Nautun P.S. Case No.149 of 2025 , 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3210 of 2026(3) dt.20-02-2026
5/5
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
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.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
sharun/-
U T
Checking your session…