Patna High Court
Karim @ Md. Abdul KarimversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to bail bond, sureties, and verification of criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Karim, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case alleging assault, choking with a leather belt, and threats, with the FIR lodged almost a year after the alleged incident. He contended innocence, political victimisation, and highlighted the unexplained delay in filing the FIR, while noting he had been granted bail in four other cases. The State opposed bail, arguing his multiple pending cases indicated a risk of misuse of liberty. The court examined the delay, the seriousness of the allegations, and the petitioner’s criminal antecedent, and concluded that anticipatory bail could be granted with strict conditions. Accordingly, the court ordered release on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to verification of criminal antecedent and compliance with Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted despite a one‑year delay in lodging the FIR.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal cases preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 127(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- delay in FIR
- criminal antecedent
- assault
- political victimisation
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- Section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39386 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-64 Year-2026 Thana- POTHIYA District- Kishanganj
======================================================
Karim @ Md. Abdul Karim S/o Abdul Salam R/o vill - Bawalgachchh Bihar
More, P.S.- Pothia, Distt.- Kishanganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhola Prasad, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramchandra Sahni, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 17-06-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned APP for the State.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks
permission to make necessary correction in paragraph no. 7 of
the present anticipatory bail petition.
3. The same is accorded.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to
make necessary correction in paragraph no. 7 of the anticipatory
bail petition during course of the day.
5. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Pothia P.S. Case No. 64 of 2026, registered under Sections
126 (2), 127 (2), 115 (2), 117 (2), 109 (1), 352, 351 (2), 3 (5) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
6. As per the prosecution story, which has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39386 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
2/4
lodged on the basis of the written report submitted by the
informant to the effect that while he was going to his home on
19.03.2025 at around 6 a.m. all the accused persons, including
the petitioner along with two other unknown persons caught
hold of him and assaulted him for hours. It has been alleged that
the petitioner pressed the neck of the informant with a leather
belt, due to which he started suffocating and then he was left. It
is further alleged that the accused persons threatened the
informant not to file any complaint before the court or the
police, and if it is found that a complaint has been made, the
informant will be killed, therefore, he did not inform the matter
to the police and subsequently filed the written report on
22.02.2026.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence. He
submits that the petitioner has been made an accused in this case
due to village politics. He further submits that the occurrence is
said to have taken place on 19.03.2025, however, the first
information report has been lodged on 22.02.2026 i.e. a delay of
almost one year and no explanation whatsoever has been given
in the first information report with regard to delay in lodging
the present first information report. He further submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39386 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
3/4
petitioner is an accused in four other cases, however, he has
been released on bail in all the cases.
8. Per contra, the learned APP for the State
vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner
and submits that the petitioner is an accused in four cases and
therefore, he does not deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail.
9. Having considered the rival submission and after
going through the records, it appears that although the
occurrence is said to have taken place on 19.03.2025, however,
the first information report has been lodged on 22.02.2026 and
no explanation whatsoever has been given in the first
information report with regard to the delay in lodging the FIR.
Let the petitioner, above named in the event of arrest/surrender
within a period of six weeks from today, be released on
anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M.-II, Kishanganj in
connection with Pothia Case No. 64 of 2026, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and subject to the following
condition:-
(I) That the learned court concerned shall verify the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39386 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
4/4
criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it
is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal
antecedent, the court concerned shall take step for 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.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
krishnakant/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.