Patna High Court
Pankaj Tiwari @ TidduversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANSUL
Holding
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail as no specific overt act is attributed to him and the bail criteria are satisfied.
Summary
The petitioner, Pankaj Tiwari, applied for bail in a case (Kateya PS Case No. 58 of 2026) involving alleged stabbing of an informant, resulting in multiple injuries, three of which were grievous. He is charged under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and is alleged to have been part of an unlawful assembly, though no specific overt act of assault is directly attributed to him in the FIR or witness statements. The State and the informant opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. The court noted that mere membership in an unlawful assembly without a specific act does not automatically preclude bail and considered the period already spent in custody and the pre‑trial stage. Consequently, the court granted bail subject to conditions, emphasizing that the observations are prima facie and not a determination on the merits of the case.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in the absence of a specific overt act attributed to him.
- Whether mere membership in an unlawful assembly, invoking Section 149 IPC, suffices to deny bail at the pre‑trial stage.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior custody and criminal antecedents affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 3(5)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 161
- Indian Penal Code — s. 149
Subjects
- bail
- unlawful assembly
- vicarious liability
- Section 149 IPC
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- pre‑trial detention
- criminal antecedents
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 34252 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-58 Year-2026 Thana- KATEYA District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Pankaj Tiwari @ Tiddu S/O Late Hariibans Tiwari @ Harivansh Tiwari
Resident of village-Belahi khas, Police Station-Kateya, District-Gopalganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Kalyan Shankar, A.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Vyas Kumar Mishra, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
ORAL ORDER
2 20-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the informant through
video conferencing.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Kateya
P.S. Case No. 58 of 2026 instituted for the offences under
Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109 & 3(5) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita.
3. The allegation is that the petitioner along with three
other accused persons is alleged to have stabbed the informant
due to which, he sustained 13 injuries, out of which, three
injuries have been found grievous in nature.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 34252 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
2/4
present case. Counsel states that the parties are agnates and
there is a long standing dispute between the co-accused
Dhananjay Tiwari and the informant. The informant even in his
own statement has not assigned any specific role to any person.
Counsel states that the matter of common object, common
intention or unlawful assembly cannot be thrashed out at this
stage and the persons should be individually held liable, atleast
at the stage of bail. Counsel further states that the petitioner is in
custody since 05.02.2026, having three criminal antecedents.
5. Learned A.P.P for the State opposed the prayer for
grant of bail to the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the informant also vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submits
that the petitioner has mercilessly assaulted the informant and it
is immaterial that out of 13 stabbed wounds who was the author
of which assault.
7. The applicant is alleged to be a member of an
unlawful assembly in connection with a case of homicidal death.
It is, however, to be noted that no specific overt act of assault
has been attributed to the applicant in either the First
Information Report or in the statements of the eyewitnesses
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The applicant's presence at
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 34252 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
3/4
the scene of occurrence appears to be the primary basis of his
implication.
8. The Supreme Court has consistently held that mere
membership of an unlawful assembly, without a specific overt
act being attributed to an accused, is a factor that the court must
weigh carefully while considering bail, particularly at the pre-
trial stage. The vicarious liability fastened by Section 149 IPC is
a liability at the time of conviction and does not by itself answer
the question of bail, where the individual role of the applicant
and the prima facie material against him must be examined.
9. Having regard to the fact that no specific overt act
of assault is attributed to the applicant, the period of
incarceration already undergone, and the stage of trial, this
Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for
bail. The applicant is accordingly enlarged on bail subject to the
following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court
on all dates of hearing without fail; (ii) The applicant shall not
tamper with evidence or attempt to influence any witness; (iii)
The applicant shall not leave the State without prior permission
of this Court; (iv) Any violation of the above conditions shall
entitle the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 34252 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
4/4
10. Considering that the parties are agnates and there
is prior animosity as well as the fact that the allegation is
general and omnibus, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner.
11. Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing
bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of A.C.J.M.-VI,
Gopalganj in connection with Kateya P.S. Case No. 58 of 2026.
12. It is made clear that any observation made herein
is prima facie in nature and limited solely for the purpose of
adjudication of the present bail application. Such observations
shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case
and shall not influence the trial or any other proceedings in any
manner.
(Ansul, J)
Divyansh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.