Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Tuntun RamversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The court allowed the anticipatory bail application.

Summary

Petitioner Tuntun Ram, a co‑sharer and neighbour of the complainant, applied for anticipatory bail in a case where he is alleged to be involved in offences under IPC sections 323, 341, 302 and 34. The prosecution alleged that on 11‑10‑2019 the accused entered the complainant’s house, murdered her daughter and later assaulted the complainant. The petitioner contended that he is not named in the FIR, was falsely implicated due to a dispute among co‑sharers, and has a clean antecedent. The court noted the absence of the petitioner’s name in the FIR, the delay in filing the complaint, and his clean record. Considering these factors, the court granted anticipatory bail, directing that if arrested within eight weeks he may be released on a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the Cr.P.C.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner who is not named in the FIR but faces charges under IPC sections 323, 341, 302 and 34
  • Whether the petitioner’s claim of false implication and clean antecedent warrants bail

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • false implication
  • co‑sharer dispute
  • Indian Penal Code
  • Criminal Procedure Code
  • bail bond

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4343 of 2026
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-93 Year-2023 Thana- KESARIA District- East Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Tuntun Ram Son of Late Garbhu Ram Resident of Village- Derwan Mathiya,
                 P.S.- Kesariya, District- East Champaran at Motihari
                                                                             ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                     Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                      ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Kanhiya Kishor, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   19-02-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

                                2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for

                   the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 302, 34 of the

                   Indian Penal Code.

                                3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.10.2019 at

                   about 5:30 P.M. the daughter of the complainant was in the house.

                   In the meantime, all the F.I.R. named accused persons entered into

                   the house of complainant and committed murder of her daughter.

                   The son of complainant informed her about the incident

                   whereupon she came back to her house and the accused persons

                   also assaulted her.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. has falsely been implicated in

                   this case due to dispute between the co-sharers. The petitioner is

                   co-sharer and next door neighbour of the complainant. He further
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4343 of 2026(2) dt.19-02-2026
                                                        2/2




                      submits that occurrence had taken place on 11.10.2019 and from

                      perusal of the complainant-cum-first information report it appears

                      that the complainant is not an eye witness. Post mortem was

                      conducted on the dead body on 12.10.2019 and first time

                      complaint has been filed by the complainant on 18.10.2019 i.e.,

                      after a lapse of seven days and subsequently, the learned

                      Magistrate directed for lodging F.I.R. under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

                      Petitioner claims clean antecedent.

                                   5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the

                      bail application.

                                   6. Considering backdrop of the case, nature of

                      accusation and clean antecedent, this anticipatory bail is allowed

                      and it is ordered that let the above named petitioner in the event of

                      his arrest/surrender before the court below within a period of eight

                      weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of

                      Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

                      each to the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, East

                      Champaran, Motihari in connection with Kesariya P. S. Case No.

                      93 of 2023, subject to condition as laid down under Section 482(2)

                      of the BNSS.



                                            (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
U       T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.