Patna High Court
Himmat Rai @ Himmat YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Himmat Rai, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 303(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to a land‑dispute‑turned‑violence. He claimed a clean antecedent and alleged that the informant had falsely implicated him, asserting that the FIR’s description of a knife injury to the chest was inconsistent. The State’s counsel argued that the FIR specifically alleged the petitioner’s involvement in a grievous assault. The Court examined the material in the FIR and the submissions of both sides and concluded that the allegations were sufficient to deny anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita provisions.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute a sufficient ground to deny anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- land dispute
- assault
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60840 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-418 Year-2024 Thana- BAIKUNTHPUR District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Himmat Rai @ Himmat Yadav S/o Lalan Ray R/o vill - Pakaha Road, P.S.-
Baikunthpur, Distt.- Gopalganj, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Madan Mohan
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Nawal Kishore Prasad
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 09-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 118(1), 109, 303(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that on 22-12-2024, a panchayati was convened in
between the family members of the petitioner and the informant
for resolving the prevailing land dispute; and in the panchayati,
the accused persons assaulted the family members of the
informant with knife and lathi, it is further alleged that this
petitioner assaulted Yadav Lal Rai by knife causing injury on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60840 of 2025(3) dt.09-01-2026
2/2
chest.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
informant alleges that petitioner stabbed Yadav Lal Rai from
behind by knife, but then the injury has been found on chest, on
which the learned APP submits that FIR is not an encyclopedia
and there is a specific allegation against this petitioner of
assaulting Yadav Lal Rai by knife and the injury caused on chest
of Yadav Lal has been opined to be grievous in nature.
5. Considering the submission made by learned APP,
the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…