Patna High Court
Bablu Ram @ Bablu Kumar RamversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to specified conditions, under Section 438 of the CrPC.
Summary
The petitioners, three residents of Mahuawan village, applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a 2017 case (Kuchaikote PS No. 308) alleging multiple offences under the IPC, including assault and robbery. They claimed the allegations were false, stemming from a personal dispute, and that they had previously been granted protection under Section 41(1) of the CrPC and had cooperated with the investigation. The State opposed the bail, arguing specific assault allegations and that no warrant had been issued, so no apprehension of arrest existed. Relying on precedents (Sibbia and Bharat Chaudhary) and the provisions of Sections 438 and 41 of the CrPC, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, and conditions regarding presence, cooperation, and verification of antecedents. The order emphasized that its observations would not affect the trial and the application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC can be granted when the accused have previously been protected under Section 41(1) CrPC and face allegations of assault and robbery.
- Whether the petitioners have a reasonable apprehension of arrest despite no warrant being issued.
- Whether the personal dispute and alleged false implication affect the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 41(1), 438
- Indian Penal Code — s. 308, 323, 325, 341, 379, 435, 448, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 41(1) CrPC
- Indian Penal Code offences
- bail conditions
- high court order
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33408 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-308 Year-2017 Thana- KUCHAIKOTE District- Gopalganj
======================================================
1. Bablu Ram @ Bablu Kumar Ram, S/o Mohan Ram;
2. Mohan Ram, S/o Late Mangal Ram; and
3. Anu Ram @ Anu Kumar, S/o Nandlal Ram;
All are residents of Village- Mahuawan, Sasamusa, P.S.- Kuchaikote,
District- Gopalganj, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prasoon Shekhar, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Zainul Abedin, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 18-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned A.P.P. for the State through virtual mode.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Kuchaikote P.S. Case No. 308 of 2017
registered for the offence(s) under Section(s) 341, 323, 325,
308, 448, 379, 435, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case is to the effect that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33408 of 2026(2) dt.18-05-2026
2/5
informant has alleged that the named accused persons including
the petitioners, all armed with rods and sticks, started assaulting
the informant. It has been alleged that when the son of the
informant came to save him, the petitioner No. 1, armed with an
iron rod, gave a blow on his head, as a result of which he
sustained injuries. It has further been alleged that petitioner No.
3 assaulted the daughter of the informant, namely, Kavita
Kumari, with a stick, while petitioner No. 2 assaulted Suman
Devi with a garasa on her head, causing a cut injury. There is
also an allegation that a sum of Rs. 40,000/- was taken away
after breaking the lock of a box.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case due to
personal dispute between their family and the family of the
informant. It has been submitted that the injuries sustained by
the informant, his son and daughters were all found to be simple
in nature. It has further been pointed out that during the course
of investigation, the petitioners were summoned and were
granted the benefit under Section 41(1) of the Cr.P.C. on
15.12.2017 as they had been cooperating with the investigation.
It has been submitted that subsequent thereto, though the
charge-sheet was submitted on 17.12.2017, but no coercive
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33408 of 2026(2) dt.18-05-2026
3/5
action was initiated against them thereafter. It has further been
submitted that recently the petitioners came to know that
pursuant to cognizance having been taken against them,
summons have been issued, though the same were never served
upon them.
5. It has, thus, been submitted on behalf of the
petitioners that there has been no willful delay in approaching
this Court and, in fact, since the petitioners had been granted
protection under Section 41(1) of the Cr.P.C., they had no
apprehension of arrest earlier and only after learning about the
cognizance order that they may be apprehended, the petitioners
have approached this Court for grant of anticipatory bail. It has
next been submitted that the petitioners have falsely been
implicated in this case with allegation of assault along with
others. It has also been submitted that there was a case lodged
on behalf of the wife of petitioner No. 3 against the informant
and others and it is on account of the long standing dispute
between the parties that the petitioners have falsely been
implicated in this case. It has lastly been submitted that the
petitioners have clean antecedents.
6. The learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33408 of 2026(2) dt.18-05-2026
4/5
petitioners and has submitted that there are specific allegations
of assault upon the petitioners. It has further been submitted
that since the petitioners had already been granted the benefit
under Section 41(1) Cr.P.C. and no warrant had been issued
against them, they do not have any reasonable apprehension of
arrest.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties as
also the law laid down in the cases of Shri Gurbaksh Singh
Sibbia & Ors. Vs. The State of Punjab, reported in (1980) 2
SCC 565 and Bharat Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar &
Anr., reported in (2003) 8 SCC 77, let the petitioners, above-
named, be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of their
arrest or surrender before the concerned Court/successor Court
within a period of four weeks from today, on their furnishing
bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction
of the concerned Court/successor Court where the case is
pending in connection with Kuchaikote P.S. Case No. 308 of
2017, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with
corresponding Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33408 of 2026(2) dt.18-05-2026
5/5
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S.) as well as subject to the
following conditions :
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioners shall be their
close relative and the other shall be a local resident.
(ii) The petitioners shall remain physically present
before the concerned Court on each and every date of the
trial and shall cooperate in the investigation.
(iii) In case of absence for two consecutive occasions
or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of
the petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the
concerned Court.
(iv) The concerned Court shall verify the criminal
antecedents of the petitioners and in case, at any stage, it is
found that they have concealed their criminal antecedents,
the Court concerned shall take necessary steps for
cancellation of their bail bonds. 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.
8. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
9. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Praveen-II/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.