Patna High Court
Rusi Kumar @ Rustam KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to a bail bond, sureties and verification of criminal antecedents.
Summary
The petitioners, Rusi Kumar, Golu Kumar and Prakash Yadav, sought anticipatory bail in connection with PS case No. 109 of 2025, where they were alleged to have assaulted an informant over a parking dispute, including assault with lathi, fists, bricks and theft of a gold chain. They argued that the FIR was lodged two days after the incident, the injuries to the informant were simple, and that some co‑accused had already been granted anticipatory bail, while they have clean antecedents. The State opposed bail, contending that one of the injured persons, Sanni Kumar, suffered grievous injury, warranting denial of bail. The Court observed that a free fight had occurred with mutual injuries and, noting the earlier grant of anticipatory bail to six co‑accused, ordered that the petitioners be released on bail upon furnishing a Rs 10,000 bond with two sureties, subject to verification of criminal antecedents under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. and other conditions. The order thus granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail despite allegations of assault and grievous injury to a co‑accused.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of injuries affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Statutes (B.N.S.) — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351, 352(2), 74
- Bihar Negotiable Statutes (B.N.S.S.) — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- assault
- FIR delay
- grievous injury
- Section 482
- bail bond
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 39440 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-109 Year-2025 Thana- Amhara District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
1. Rusi Kumar @ Rustam Kumar S/o Varun Yadav R/o Village - Balgudar, P.S.
- Lakhisarai, District- Lakhisarai.
2. Golu Kumar S/o Varun Yadav R/o Village - Balgudar, P.S. - Lakhisarai,
District- Lakhisarai.
3. Prakash Yadav S/o Sharvan Yadav @ Shravan Gop R/o Village - Balgudar,
P.S. - Lakhisarai, District- Lakhisarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Tapeshwar Sharma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 17-06-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned APP for the state.
2. The petitioners apprehends their arrest in
connection with Amahra P.S. Case No. 109 of 2025, for
allegedly having committed offence under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 109, 74, 303(2), 351, 352(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution story, which has been lodged
on the basis of the written report submitted by the informant to
the effect that on the date of occurrence, all the accused persons
started abusing the informant with regard to an altercation for
parking the bike. All the accused persons are said to have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 39440 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
2/4
assaulted the informant with lathi, fists, slaps and bricks. It has
been alleged that co-accused Sanni Kumar snatched gold chain
of the informant and they also misbehaved with the family
members of the informant.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any
offence. He submits that although the occurrence is said to have
taken place on 18.10.2025, however the F.I.R. has been lodged
on 20.10.2025 and no explanation whatsoever has been given
from the same. He further submits that from perusal of the
injury report of the informant, it would transpire that the injuries
sustained by the informant have been found to be simple in
nature. Further, for the same occurrence, Amahra P.S. Case No.
110 of 2025 has been lodged against the informant and his
family members by the mother of the petitioner no.1. He further
submits that some of the co-accused persons have been granted
the privilege of anticipatory bail by the learned Hon’ble Single
Judge of this Court vide order dated 28.01.2026 passed in Cr.
Misc. No. 2871 of 2026. He further submits that the petitioners
have got a clean antecedent.
5. Per contra, the learned APP for the state
vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioners and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 39440 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
3/4
submits that from the injury report which has been annexed at
annexure-2, to the present anticipatory bail application, it would
transpire that one of the injured namely Sanni Kumar has
sustained grievous injury and therefore the petitioners does not
deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. Having heard the rival submissions and after going
through the records, it appears that there was a free fight in
between the parties for which case and counter case has been
lodged. The side of the petitioners have also lodged a case, and
both the parties have suffered injuries. Further, although one of
the injured has suffered grievous injuries, however considering
the fact, that the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this court has
granted the privilege of anticipatory bail to six of the co-accused
persons vide order dated 28.01.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
2871 of 2026, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail
on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the Learned A.C.J.M-3rd, Lakhisarai in connection with Amahra
P.S. Case No. 109 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., with further
condition:
(1) The learned Court concerned shall verify the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 39440 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
4/4
criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage, it
is found that the petitioners have concealed his criminal
antecedents, the court concerned shall take steps for cancellation
of bail bond of the petitioners. 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.