Patna High Court
Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to petitioner 1 but granted to petitioner 2.
Summary
The petitioners, Jitendra Kumar and Amarjeet Kumar, were implicated in a robbery and assault case where they allegedly stopped an informant, demanded a rangdari, assaulted him with the butt of a pistol, and stole a gold chain and cash. Both sought anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. Petitioners argued innocence and lack of specific accusation against the second petitioner, while the State highlighted the FIR details and a prior conviction of the first petitioner under Section 395 IPC. The Court examined the specificity of the accusations, the criminal antecedent of petitioner 1, and the clean record of petitioner 2. It denied anticipatory bail to petitioner 1 due to the direct nature of the charge and his prior conviction, but granted bail to petitioner 2, noting the general nature of the accusation and his clean antecedents. The bail for petitioner 2 was conditioned on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and compliance with Section 482(2) conditions, and the application was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner 1 under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. given the specific accusations and prior criminal antecedent.
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner 2 under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. considering the general nature of the accusation and his clean record.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 395
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- robbery
- assault with pistol
- criminal antecedent
- Section 482
- Bihar High Court
- Criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5402 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-653 Year-2025 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali
======================================================
1. Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Rai Son of Shivchandra Ray Resident of Village
- Tada Singhara, P.S.- Mahua, District - Vaishali at Hajipur.
2. Amarjeet Kumar @ Amarjeet Rai Son of Shivchandra Ray Resident of
Village - Tada Singhara, P.S.- Mahua, District - Vaishali at Hajipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Ms. Sudha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Yogendra Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 03-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 109, 308(5), 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S..
3. As per prosecution case, on 09.06.2025 at about 6
PM, when the informant was returning from his daughter’s
sasural and reached at Tara Singhara village, in the meantime,
both these accused-petitioners, along with five unknown
persons, stopped him and demanded Rangdari and when the
informant opposed, all of them took out pistol and Petitioner
No. 1 assaulted informant with butt of pistol and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5402 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
2/3
thereafter, all the accused persons snatched gold chain and Rs.
50,000/- cash from the informant.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and
have committed no offence. Both parties are co-villagers and
due to petty dispute, maar-peet took place between the parties in
which both sides sustained injuries. There is case and counter-
case. There is no specific accusation of overt act against
Petitioner No. 2. Petitioner No. 2 claims clean antecedents.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioners and submitted that petitioners are named in the
F.I.R. with specific accusation that they, along with five
unknown persons, intercepted the informant, assaulted him with
butt of pistol and snatched gold chain and cash from pocket of
informant. There is specific accusation against Petitioner No. 1
of demanding Rangdari and assaulting the informant. Petitioner
No. 1 has got one criminal antecedent which was registered for
the offence punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal
Code.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, specific and direct nature of accusation and criminal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5402 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026
3/3
antecedent of the petitioner, the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail to Petitioner No. 1 is rejected.
7. So far as Petitioner No. 2 is concerned, considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, general and omnibus
nature of accusation, case and counter-case between the parties
and clean antecedents of the petitioner, the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail to Petitioner No. 2 is allowed.
8. Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender within
a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named
Petitioner No. 2 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 learned S.J.-V-cum-A.C.J.M.-IV,
Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Mahua P.S. Case No. 653
of 2025, subject to condition as laid down under Section 482(2)
of the B.N.S.S..
9. With the aforesaid directions, this application
stands disposed of.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…