Patna High Court
Jhingan SahaniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The Court denied anticipatory bail to petitioner 1 but granted anticipatory bail to petitioner 2 subject to bond and surety conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, Jhingan Sahani and Tetari Devi, were implicated in a 2015 case alleging multiple offences under the Indian Penal Code, including assault and robbery. They applied for anticipatory bail, claiming innocence, a 22‑day delay in filing the FIR, and no prior criminal record. The State opposed the bail, particularly for petitioner 1, citing a specific allegation that he assaulted the informant’s husband with an iron rod. The Court, after weighing the specific charge against petitioner 1, denied his anticipatory bail, but found no such specific allegation against petitioner 2 and granted her anticipatory bail subject to bond and surety conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The order thus partially disposes the bail applications, rejecting one and granting the other with conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner 1 in view of the specific allegation of assault with an iron rod.
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner 2 despite the general nature of the allegations.
- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the absence of criminal antecedents justify granting anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 324, 34, 341, 379, 448, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Section 482
- criminal procedure
- bail
- assault
- delay in FIR
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.43517 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-269 Year-2015 Thana- TURKAULIYA District- East
Champaran
======================================================
1. Jhingan Sahani son of Late Gena Sahani Resident Of Village- Kawalpur
Kanhi Tola Ps -Turkauliya District- East Champaran
2. Tetari Devi Son of Lalbahadur Sahani Resident Of Village- Kawalpur Kanhi
Tola Ps -Turkauliya District- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umanath Mishra, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
6 05-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
APP for the State and perused the case diary.
2. The petitioners apprehend arrest in connection with
Turkauliya P.S. Case No. 269 of 2015, instituted for the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 448, 504,
506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioners
along with other co-accused persons assaulted husband and
brother-in-law of the informant by means of axe and iron-rod
causing injuries to them. It is further alleged that co-accused
Shanti Devi has snatched Mangalsutra of the informant.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43517 of 2025(6) dt.05-02-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the
present case. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted
that there is delay of twenty two days in lodging the FIR. It is
next submitted that the allegation levelled against the petitioners
are general and omnibus in nature. The petitioners have got no
criminal antecedent. Learned counsel for the petitioners further
submitted that other co-accused has been granted regular bail by
this Court vide order dated 29.07.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
46362 of 2025.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioners. It is next submitted
that specific allegation has been attributed against petitioner no.
1 of assaulting informant’s husband by means of iron rod.
Hence, petitioner no. 1 does not deserve the privilege of
anticipatory bail.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made on
behalf of the parties, taking into account the specific allegation
against petitioner no. 1, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to
petitioner no. 1. So far as remaining petitioner, i.e. petitioner no.
2, is concerned, this Court is inclined to grant bail to petitioner
no. 2.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.43517 of 2025(6) dt.05-02-2026
3/3
7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail to petitioner no. 1, namely, Jhingan Sahani, is hereby,
rejected.
8. So far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned, let the
petitioner (i.e. petitioner no. 2), above named in the event of
arrest/surrender before the learned Court below within a period
of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
Court below/concerned Court in connection with Turkauliya
P.S. Case No. 269 of 2015, subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-
U T
Checking your session…