Patna High Court
Ram Babu MukhiyaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The anticipatory bail application was rejected as the case was not fit for such relief.
Summary
Ram Babu Mukhiya applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a criminal case (PS Case No.30 of 2025) involving alleged assault causing injuries. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with another accused, delivered repeated blows to a child’s head and near the left eye following a minor fight. The petitioner’s counsel argued for bail, but the court examined the seriousness of the allegations and the nature of the offences under sections 115(2), 126(2), 109, 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS. The court held that the case was not suitable for anticipatory bail and therefore rejected the application. It directed that if the petitioner surrenders within four weeks, the matter should be disposed of promptly. Additionally, the court noted procedural irregularities concerning an affidavit sworn by an oath commissioner who had ceased to function and ordered a report on the matter.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged assault and multiple serious offences under the BNS
- Whether an affidavit sworn by a ceased oath commissioner affects the validity of the proceedings
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Statutes (BNS) — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- assault
- affidavit
- oath commissioner
- BNS sections
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.615 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-30 Year-2025 Thana- BHAIRAVSHTHAN District- Madhubani
======================================================
Ram Babu Mukhiya Son of Nathuni Mukhiya Resident of village- Raiyam,
Ps- Bhairavsthan, Dist- Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Baleshwar Kamat, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Braj Kishore Pd., APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 04-02-2026 Heard Mr. Uday Bhanu Rai, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Bhairavsthan P.S. Case No. 30 of 2025 for
the offence under sections 115(2), 126(2), 109, 303(2), 352,
351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS lodged on 23.03.2025 by the
informant, Kapleshwar Mukhiya.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant
alleged that on 25.02.2025 due to a minor fight between
children, the elders came in and allegation thereafter is against
this petitioner amongst other of having given repeated blows
on the head causing injuries.
4. Though learned counsel for the petitioner submits
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.615 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
2/3
that allegation is against two accused persons, learned APP
has taken this Court to the order sheet of the learned Sessions
Judge to show that repeated blow was given causing injuries
on the scalp as also near the left eye.
5. Considering the allegation that has come against
the petitioner, certainly, this is not a fit case to extend
anticipatory bail.
6. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application
stands rejected.
7. If, however, the petitioner surrenders within four
weeks, the concerned Court shall take up the matter and
dispose it of preferably on the same day.
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 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 24.12.2025 through Ms.
Vandana Kumari.
9. Office is directed to report as to why, despite the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.615 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
3/3
aforesaid Oath Commissioner having ceased to function, the
defect was not pointed out in the present case and/or that fact
was not brought to the appropriate superior authority.
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…