Patna High Court
Abishekh Kumar @ Bishekh Kumar @ Abishek Raj @ Abishek Rai @ Bishek KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted because the injury was simple and there was no direct allegation against the first petitioner, subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, Abishekh Kumar and Sukrit Rai, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Patepur Police Station Case No. 299 of 2025, which alleged multiple offences under the BNS. The prosecution alleged that Sukrit Rai assaulted the informant, causing a simple injury, while no direct allegation was made against Abishekh Kumar. The petitioners argued that the injury was minor and offered to pay Rs. 3,000 towards the informant's medical expenses. The State opposed the bail, contending that Sukrit Rai inflicted a lathi blow on the informant’s head. The Court, after examining the evidence, found the injury to be simple and, noting the lack of direct allegation against Abishekh Kumar, granted anticipatory bail with specific conditions, including a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties. Additionally, the Court noted a procedural defect concerning an oath commissioner who had ceased to function and directed a show‑cause notice on that issue.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the alleged injury is simple in nature
- Whether the lack of direct allegation against one accused precludes bail denial
- Whether the procedural defect of an oath commissioner who ceased to function affects the validity of the affidavit
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Statutes (BNS) — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 126(1), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 74
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- simple injury
- bail conditions
- procedural defect
- oath commissioner
- FIR
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.573 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-299 Year-2025 Thana- PATEPUR District- Vaishali
======================================================
1. Abishekh Kumar @ Bishekh Kumar @ Abishek Raj @ Abishek Rai @
Bishek Kumar S/o Ramudgar Rai Resident of Village- Bardiha Turki, P.S.-
Patepur, District- Vaishali
2. Sukrit Rai S/o Kishore Rai Resident of Village- Bardiha Turki, P.S.- Patepur,
District- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Asha Devi, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 04-02-2026 Heard Mr. Aditya Pandey, learned counsel for the
petitioners and the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Patepur P.S. Case No. 299 of 2025 for the
offence under sections 126(1), 115(2), 118(1), 74, 303(2), 109,
351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the BNS lodged on 10.09.2025 by the
informant, Gautam Kumar.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that he was constructing a shop for grocery business and used to
visit the site daily. There exist another grocery shop belonging
to the accused side who were unhappy with the said
construction of the grocery shop and on the fateful day, after
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.573 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
2/5
abuse, the accused side assaulted. Allegation against
Singheshwar Rai is of assaulting his brother Saurabh Kumar by
a broken bottle while Mithlesh Kumar Rai gave knife blow on
the head which actually hit his shoulder. Pinki Devi opposed the
said assault when it is alleged that Lakhindar Rai assaulted her.
Sukrit Rai (petitioner no. 2) assaulted the informant on his head
and thereafter, allegation is of removing mobile set/chain which
followed their shifting to the hospital. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has taken this
Court to the learned Sessions Judge order to show that the injury
inflicted by Sukrit Rai has been found to be simple in nature.
Further, no direct allegation is against the petitioner no. 1,
Abishekh Kumar. The last submission is that without accepting
the allegation and/or the outcome of the present petition in view
of the fact that the informant’s side has alleged injuries, the
petitioner no. 2, Sukrit Rai on its own would like to contribute
Rs. 3,000/- towards the medical assistance of the informant
through Demand Draft issued by the local State Bank of
India/any Nationalized Bank branch to be submitted before the
‘NAZARAT’ of concerned Court to be handed over to the
informant after checking the credentials.
5. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.573 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
3/5
allegation against Sukrit Rai if of giving ‘lathi’ blow on the
head of the informant.
6. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
as also the materials on record, the injury has been found to be
simple in nature so far as the same has been inflicted by Sukrit
Rai and there is no direct allegation against the petitioner no. 1,
Abishekh Kumar, in that background, this Court is inclined to
extend them the privilege of anticipatory bail with conditions
subject to payment of Rs. 3,000/- by the petitioner no. 2, Sukrit
Rai as undertaken by the learned counsel for the petitioners to
be paid by Demand Draft of local State Bank of India
branch/any Nationalized bank branch to be submitted to the
Trial Court which shall be handed over to the informant after
checking the credentials.
7. Let the petitioners 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 CJM, Vaishali, Hajipur in connection
with Patepur P.S. Case No. 299 of 2025 subject to the following
conditions:
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.573 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
4/5
member/relative of the petitioners who shall provide official
document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioners 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 their
bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
8. While passing the order, this Court has taken note
of the fact that three Oath Commissioners, namely, Shri Ravi
Ranjan, Ms. Pratibha Kumari Mishra and Ms. Vandana Kumari,
ceased to function as Oath Commissioners with effect from
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.573 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
5/5
17.12.2025, 17.12.2025 and 18.12.2025 respectively. The cause
list also reflects the names of the present Oath Commissioners.
However, the affidavit in the present case has been sworn on
19.12.2025 through Ms. Pratibha Kumari Mishra.
9. Office is directed to submit show cause on the point
as to why, despite the aforesaid Oath Commissioner having
ceased to function, the defect was not pointed out in the present
case.
10. List this case under the heading “To Be
Mentioned” on 11.02.2026 for perusal of the report.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U
Checking your session…