Patna High Court
MD. TALIMversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to a cash bond and strict conditions.
Summary
MD Talim applied for anticipatory bail in a case arising from a land dispute where he was alleged to have participated in assault and theft, leading to charges under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The petitioner argued he was not present at the scene, had no criminal record, and cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Asha Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh to support his bail request. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offences. The Court examined the applicability of Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the BNSS, and found the petitioner’s explanations sufficient to grant bail. Consequently, the Court ordered his release on bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and specific conditions, should he be arrested or surrender within six weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C.
- Whether the petitioner is sufficiently implicated in the offences charged under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Whether the conditions imposed under Section 482(2) of the BNSS are appropriate
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 103(2)(1), 109, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 482(2), 75
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 82
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- land dispute
- assault
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 82 CrPC
- Section 482 BNSS
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6641 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-183 Year-2024 Thana- PHENHARA District- East Champaran
======================================================
MD. TALIM Son of Late Md. Hafiz Resident of Vill.- Phenhara, P.S.-
Phenhara, Dist.- East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sangeet Deokuliar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Murli Dhar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 04-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in
connection with Phenhara P.S. Case No.183 of 2024, dated
16.12.2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections
126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 75, 303(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) and
103(2)(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that due to a
land dispute, the accused persons allegedly assaulted the
informant’s husband with a farsa, causing him to sustain a head
injury. The informant and other family members were also
assaulted, and certain articles were allegedly snatched by the
accused persons.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this
case. He fairly submits that the petitioner was not at home
during the incident and, for earning his livelihood, was residing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6641 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
2/3
out of station. During his stay, the process under Section 82 of
the Cr.P.C. was undertaken by the Court below. By referring to
the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Asha Dubey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2024
LiveLaw (SC) 889, he submits that there is no embar go in
entertaining an anticipatory bail application where sufficient
reasons are explained. It is the case of the petitioner that the
fardbeyan of the son of the deceased, which is said to have
been recorded in the IGIMS, Patna, goes to show that co-
accused Tamanne had assaulted the deceased with a sword on
the head. Further, the deposition made by the informant during
the course of trial indicates that the deceased had fallen on a
cattle-feeding instrument made of cement (Nad) and got
injured. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner has no criminal
antecedents.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State
has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Taking into account that the reason of death, as
stated by the informant during the course of trial, does not
implicate this petitioner, let the above named petitioner, be
released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the
learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6641 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
3/3
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned CJM, Motihari, East Champaran/Successor Court in
connection with Phenhara P.S. Case No.183 of 2024 subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS
as well as the following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official
document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) 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/her/their bail
bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) 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;
(iv) the petitioner(s) 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.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
shikha/-
U T
Checking your session…