Patna High Court
Arun MehtaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court held that bail should be granted to the petitioner subject to specified conditions.
Summary
Arun Mehta was arrested in connection with a case of assault alleged under several sections of the B.N.S., including 191(2), 191(3), 115(2) and others. He contended that the FIR was false, the injury inflicted was simple and the dispute was a case‑and‑counter‑case, and therefore he was innocent. The State opposed bail, pointing to two other pending cases against the petitioner. The court examined the nature of the injury, the surrounding dispute and the petitioner’s criminal antecedent, and concluded that bail could be granted. Accordingly, the court ordered his release on a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, appearance, non‑tampering with evidence and verification of antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the seriousness of the offences alleged under the B.N.S.
- Whether the simple nature of the injury and the existence of a case‑and‑counter‑case justify bail
- Whether pending criminal cases against the petitioner preclude the grant of bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 109, 115, 118, 126, 191, 303, 351, 352
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- assault
- simple injury
- case and counter case
- conditions of bail
- verification of antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3404 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-99 Year-2025 Thana- Mufassil District- Purnia
======================================================
Arun Mehta S/O Jagdish Mehta @ Jagadish Mehta R/O Village- Chandi
Kathwa, P.S- Mufassil, Distt.- Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Vinod Shanker Modi, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 30-01-2026 Heard Mr. Bipin Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Vinod Shanker Modi, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
19.10.2025 in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 99 of
2025, F.I.R. dated 07.07.2025 for the offences punishable under
Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 126(2), 118(1), 109, 352,
303(2) and 351(2) of the B.N.S.
3. According to prosecution case, the petitioner and
other co-accused persons are alleged to have abused and
assaulted the informant's husband by means of spade causing
head injury. Allegation against the petitioner and co-accused are
of giving dabiya blow to the husband of the informant on his
eye, leg due to which he sustained cut injury.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3404 of 2026(2) dt.30-01-2026
2/4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
present case. Learned counsel further submits that the allegation
as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner
has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. From bare
perusal of F.I.R., it appears that due to some petty dispute, the
present occurrence has taken place and there is case and counter
case between the parties. Although, the petitioner is named in
the F.I.R. and the specific allegation against the petitioner is that
he along with one Suman Kumar have assaulted the husband of
the informant on his leg. He further submits that due to present
occurrence, both sides have received injuries and it appears
from the injury report of the husband of the informant namely,
Parmanand Mehta suggests that the second number of injury
inflicted by the petitioner is found to be simple in nature caused
by hard and blunt substance and the police after investigation,
submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is
in custody since 19.10.2025.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the
petitioner carries two more cases other than the present one but
fairly submits on the basis of paragraph 3 of the bail petition
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3404 of 2026(2) dt.30-01-2026
3/4
that the petitioner is on bail in both the cases.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and also the fact that there is case and counter case between the
parties and the injury inflicted upon the husband of the
informant is found to be simple in nature, let the petitioner,
above named, 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Purnea/appropriate court below in connection with Muffasil P.S.
Case No. 99 of 2025, with the following conditions:
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3404 of 2026(2) dt.30-01-2026
4/4
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. 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.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ranjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…