Patna High Court
Laddu Kumar @ Sunil KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to Anil Mahato and granted to Laddu Kumar subject to strict conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, Laddu Kumar and Anil Mahato, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 244 of 2025 alleging assault during a wedding ceremony. The informant claimed that Anil Mahato inflicted a two‑centimetre knife wound on his stomach, while Laddu Kumar allegedly participated in a lathi assault. The petitioners argued that there is a counter‑case, the injury to the informant was superficial, and one of the co‑accused, Anand Kumar, is also an informant. The court found that the evidence against Anil Mahato was sufficient to deny his anticipatory bail, whereas the case against Laddu Kumar, though involving an omnibus allegation and prior criminal antecedents, did not show further injury beyond that caused by Mahato. Consequently, the court rejected Mahato’s bail application and granted anticipatory bail to Laddu Kumar with stringent conditions, including a bail bond, sureties, regular appearances before the trial court and police, and non‑interference with witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to Anil Mahato given the alleged knife wound and his criminal antecedents.
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to Laddu Kumar despite an omnibus allegation and prior criminal record.
- Whether the nature and extent of the alleged injury affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether imposing conditions on anticipatory bail is appropriate in the circumstances.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal antecedents
- omnibus allegation
- FIR
- assault
- wedding dispute
- bail conditions
- Bihar Negotiable Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.531 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-244 Year-2025 Thana- MUFFASIL District- West Champaran
======================================================
1. Laddu Kumar @ Sunil Kumar S/o Dinesh Mahato R/o vill- East Kargahiya,
PS- Bettiah Muffasil, Dist- West Champaran
2. Anil Mahato S/o Dinesh Mahato R/o vill- East Kargahiya, PS- Bettiah
Muffasil, Dist- West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gyan Prakash, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 04-02-2026 Heard Mr. Gyan Prakash, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned APP.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Bettiah Muffasil P.S. Case No. 244 of 2025 for
the offence under sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1),
303(2) and 3(5) of the BNS lodged on 10.05.2025 by the
informant, Parmeshwar Chaudhary.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that on 05.05.2025, he solemnized the marriage of his daughter.
On that day, certain dispute arose in the area. On 08.05.2025 as
he was to take out the baraat of his son, the accused persons
assembled and assaulted them. Allegation against Anil Mahto
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.531 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
2/4
(petitioner no. 2) is of having given knife blow in the stomach
causing injury then the petitioner no. 1, Laddu Kumar beside
Anand Kumar and others assaulted him with lathi. This led to
the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that
there is a case and counter-case, Anand Kumar, one of the co-
accused, has also suffered injuries and he is the informant in the
FIR lodged against the present informant side. Even the injury
inflicted by Anil Mahto has been found to be superficial in
nature.
5. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that so
far as Anil Mahto is concerned, two centimeter wound has been
found in the stomach of the informant which has alleged to have
been inflicted by him and though omnibus allegation has been
alleged against the petitioner no. 1, he carries criminal
antecedents.
6. Considering the submission of the parties and the
allegation that has come against Anil Mahto (petitioner no. 2),
his anticipatory bail application stands rejected.
7. So far as petitioner no. 1, Laddu Kumar @ Sunil
Kumar is concerned, he is twenty two year of age, though has
criminal antecedents, omnibus allegation has been made and the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.531 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
3/4
learned Sessions Judge order do not show the further injuries
save and except the injury on the stomach of the informant
inflicted by Anil Mahato (petitioner no. 2), in that background,
this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory
bail with conditions.
8. Let the petitioner no. 1, Laddu Kumar @ Sunil
Kumar be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender
within a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two
sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
District and Additional Sessions Judge -VIII, West Champaran
at Bettiah in connection with Bettiah Muffasil P.S. Case No. 244
of 2025 subject to the following conditions:
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner no. 1, Laddu Kumar @ Sunil
Kumar who shall provide official document (Aadhaar
Card/Voter ID Card/Pan Card/Driving License) to show his/her
bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner no. 1, Laddu Kumar @ Sunil Kumar
shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and
failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible
reason will entail cancellation of his bail bond by the Trial Court
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.531 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
4/4
itself;
(iii) the petitioner no. 1, Laddu Kumar @ Sunil
Kumar shall appear before the concerned police station every
month for six months to mark their attendance and after the end
of the period, the certificate shall be submitted before the Trial
Court failing which steps shall be taken for the cancellation of
the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner no. 1, Laddu Kumar @ Sunil
Kumar shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the
witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State
shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner no. 1, Laddu Kumar @ Sunil Kumar
shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing
which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation
of the bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U T
Checking your session…