Patna High Court
Chandan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The Court held that bail must be granted as the FIR does not specifically identify the petitioner as the assailant.
Summary
Chandan Kumar was arrested in connection with a case alleging assault with scissors under Sections 126(2), 115(2) and 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The sole informant, who is also the eye‑witness, described the assault but did not identify the petitioner as the assailant, only noting that he fled the scene. The petitioner pleaded innocence and argued that the FIR lacks a direct accusation against him. The State opposed bail, contending that the informant’s testimony implicates the petitioner. The Court examined the FIR and found that it does not expressly name the petitioner as the perpetrator, and therefore granted bail subject to conditions under Section 2(1)(d) and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate bail disposition when the FIR contains an eye‑witness statement but does not expressly name the accused?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail under Section 2(1)(d) and Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 despite the seriousness of the alleged offences.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 2(1)(d), 482(2)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- eye‑witness testimony
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 2(1)(d)
- Section 482(2)
- presumption of innocence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38039 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-38 Year-2026 Thana- PANDARAK District- Patna
======================================================
Chandan Kumar Son of Krishan Singh R/O Vill- Bihari Bigha, P.S.-Pandarak,
Distt.- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Anjali Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
2 17-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection
with Pandarak P.S. Case No. 38 of 2026 lodged on 11.02.2026,
for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2) &
109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against
the sole petitioner. The informant has alleged that the assault has
been made by scissor on the body of her husband and when she
started making noise then the local people reached there, then
the petitioner has been seen fleeing away. Thereafter, the
husband of the informant was admitted to the Barh hospital
from where, he was referred to the PMCH. Thereafter, the
present FIR has been lodged.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38039 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel
submits that from the contents of FIR, it appears that the
informant has seen the alleged occurrence and she is the eye-
witness, but for the assault, she has not disclosed the name of
the petitioner that he has assaulted her husband, rather, it is
narrated by the informant that she has seen the petitioner fled
away from the place of occurrence. Counsel further submits that
the antecedent of the petitioner is clean and he is ready to fulfill
all the conditions whatsoever shall be imposed upon him.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
bail of the petitioner but fairly submits that it is true that the
informant is the eye-witness and if the FIR shall be read in
entirety, then it shall transpire that it is the petitioner who has
assaulted the victim by scissor.
6. Upon perusal of the FIR, it transpires to this Court
that the informant is the eye-witness, but she has not disclosed
that who has assaulted her husband by scissor. The informant is
the eye-witness of the occurrence and saw that the petitioner
was fleeing away from the place of occurrence.
7. As such, in the present facts and circumstances of
this case, let the above named petitioner be released on bail, in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38039 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
3/3
the event of arrest or surrender before the Trial Court within a
period of 4 weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) as mentioned in Section
2(1)(d) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 to the satisfaction of ACJM-1,
Barh, Patna, in connection with Pandarak P.S. Case No. 38 of
2026, subject to the conditions as laid down U/s 482(2) of the
B.N.S.S., 2023 with further conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the family member of
the petitioner who shall provide official document to show
his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall appear before the Trial Court
on each and every scheduled date, and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without any plausible reason/explanation shall
be resulted into cancellation of his bail bonds by the Trial Court
itself;
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.