Patna High Court
Chhathu SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, holding that the absence of specific allegations against them and their clean record warrant bail under Section 438 CrPC.
Summary
The petitioners, Chhathu Sharma and Shashi Bhushan Sharma, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case (PS Case No. 168 of 2021) involving multiple IPC offences including assault, robbery and criminal intimidation. The FIR alleged that a group, allegedly led by Jata Sharma, attacked the informant Kalawati Devi, injuring her and snatching her mangalsutra, with the petitioners named only in an omnibus manner. The petitioners argued that specific charges were against others, they had no criminal antecedent, and thus should be granted bail. The State contended that the petitioners were present and shared common intention in the alleged offences. Considering the lack of specific allegations against them and their clean record, the court exercised its power under Section 438 CrPC to grant anticipatory bail with stringent conditions, ordering them to surrender within four weeks and comply with bail bond requirements.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioners despite being named in an omnibus allegation in the FIR
- Whether the petitioners' lack of criminal antecedent and the specificity of charges against others justify bail under Section 438 of the CrPC
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 324, 34, 341, 379, 447, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- omnibus allegation
- common intention
- Indian Penal Code
- Criminal Procedure Code
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66514 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-168 Year-2021 Thana- GOVINDGANJ District- East
Champaran
======================================================
1. Chhathu Sharma son of Late Mukti Sharma Resident of Village- Sharma
Tola PS- Areraj OP (Govindganj) District -East Champaran
2. Shashi Bhushan Sharma son of late Mukti Sharma Resident of Village-
Sharma Tola PS- Areraj OP (Govindganj) District -East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Karandeep Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Nagendra Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
4 21-01-2026 Heard Mr. Krandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Nagendra Prasad,learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in
connection with Govindganj (Areraj O.P.) P.S. Case No. 168 of
2021 instituted under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 447,
504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 04.06.2021
by the informant, Kalawati Devi.
3. As per the prosecution story, the accused who are
agnates, came, armed variously and allegation is that on the
order of Jata Sharma @ Chandra Bhushan sharma, the attack
took place. Jata Sharma led the attack by assaulting the
informant by the axe injuring her nose. Later, Abhishek Sharma
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66514 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
2/4
gave ‘lathi’ blow to the informant. As Ritesh Kumar, her son
came to rescue, all the accused persons assaulted him as also the
son-in-law, Ajit Kumar Sharma and daughter Ripu Kumari, the
allegation of snatching of ‘Mangalsutra’ is also there. This led to
the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that a
perusal of the FIR would show that omnibus allegation is
against others, specific allegation is against Jata Sharma @
Chandra Bhushan sharma and Abhishek Sharma of assault and
snatching of the ‘Mangalsutra’. None of the petitioners have
criminal antecedent.
5. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that
with the common intention, they were present there and the
allegation of assault is also there.
6. Considering the submissions of the parties as also
the materials on record, specific allegation is against Jata
Sharma @ Chandra Bhushan sharma and Abhishek Sharma,
these two petitioners though present in the FIR, omnibus
allegation is there, have no criminal antecedent, in that
background, this Court is inclined to extend them the privilege
of anticipatory bail.
7. Let the petitioners be released on bail, in the event
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66514 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
3/4
of their arrest or surrender before the subordinate court within a
period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties
of the like amount each in connection with Govindganj (Areraj
O.P.) P.S. Case No. 168 of 2021 to the satisfaction of learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate-First Class, East Champaran at
Motihari subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as also the other conditions.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioners who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card/Driving License/Voter ID/Pan Card
etc.) 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 fortnight for next six months to mark their
attendance and at the end of the period a certificate be submitted
before the Trial Court failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioners shall in no way try to induce or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66514 of 2025(4) dt.21-01-2026
4/4
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.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U T
Checking your session…