Patna High Court
SamarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to conditions, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
Petitioners Samar and Ashu, brothers from Uttar Pradesh, were implicated in a case registered under Sections 379, 411, 420, 120B and 34 of the IPC and Sections 11(a), (d), (e), (f) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act for alleged illegal trafficking of prohibited camels stolen from Rajasthan and sent to Bangladesh via Bihar. They claimed to have a clean antecedent and argued that the informant’s allegations were false, targeting another individual named Sohaib. The State opposed anticipatory bail, fearing the petitioners might abscond and that the allegations were yet to be proved. The Court, after hearing both sides, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 each, two sureties, and the father Firoj as a bailor, invoking the inherent powers under Section 482(2) of the CrPC. The order also stipulated that bail could be cancelled if the petitioners failed to cooperate with the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners despite the serious nature of the offences alleged.
- Whether the petitioners are likely to abscond or tamper with evidence.
- Whether the petitioners have been falsely implicated and thus merit relief under Section 438 CrPC.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 34, 379, 411, 420
- Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 — s. 11(a), 11(d), 11(e), 11(f)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 CrPC
- IPC offences
- animal cruelty
- camel trafficking
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40679 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2021 Thana- PALASI District- Araria
======================================================
1. Samar S/O Firoj Resident of Village - Bhadal, P.S. Doghat, District Baghpat,
Uttar Pradesh
2. Ashu @ Asmauhmmad S/o Firoj Resident of Village - Bhadal, P.S. Doghat,
District Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mritunjay Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ram Sevak Choudhary
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 07-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 411,
420, 120B and 34 of the IPC and Section 11(a), (d), (e), (f) of
the Prevention of cruelty to Animals Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that an NGO reported about illegal trafficking of
prohibited camels, accordingly, based on the information police
along with local people recovered 11 camels on 12-2-2021 from
different places, including the bamboo orchard of Sohaib, it is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40679 of 2026(2) dt.07-07-2026
2/3
next alleged that Sohaib is in this profession for the last four
years and villagers are afraid of him thus does not disclose
about his nefarious activity, further petitioners along with other
accused persons are involved in illegal trafficking of camels, the
camels are stolen from Rajasthan and sent to Bangladesh via
Bihar.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that thrust of
the allegation is against Sohaib and against the petitioners, it is
alleged that they are also involved in trafficking of prohibited
breed of camel.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that allegations
are yet to be ascertained and if privilege of anticipatory bail is
granted to the petitioners, the petitioners may abscond, on which
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submits that if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted,
petitioners will not abscond rather will co-operate in the
investigation to prove their innocence.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40679 of 2026(2) dt.07-07-2026
3/3
counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners above-named, in the
event of their arrest or 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) each with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
trial court where the case is pending/successor court in
connection with Palasi P.S. Case No. 10 of 2021, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
7. One of the bailors of the petitioners shall be their
father, namely, Firoj.
8. However, it is made clear that in the event, if the
Investigating Officer of the case files an application before the
learned trial court bringing to its notice that the petitioners,
despite giving assurance to this Court, are not cooperating in the
investigation, in that event, the learned trial court shall be at
liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners.
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned
police station through the learned Trial Court.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.