Patna High Court
Bambam NishadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner subject to the conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S.
Summary
The petitioner, Bambam Nishad, was implicated in a case involving alleged assault, firing of weapons, and offences under several sections of the Bihar Non-Compulsory Statutes (B.N.S.) and the Arms Act. He claimed the allegations were false, that no one was injured, and that the FIR lacked a clear motive. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, assuring the court of his cooperation with the investigation. The State opposed the bail, arguing potential non‑cooperation and risk of tampering with evidence. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., including the possibility of cancellation if the petitioner fails to cooperate. The order also stipulated that the petitioner’s father would act as one of the bailors.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S.
- Whether the petitioner is likely to abscond or tamper with the investigation
- Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute a sufficient ground to deny anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- Section 482 B.N.S.S.
- false implication
- assault
- arms act
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66995 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-29 Year-2025 Thana- MARANCHI District- Patna
======================================================
Bambam Nishad Son of Chharpan Nishad @ Shatrudhan Nishad Resident of
Village - Naya Kasha Diyara Near Pani Tanki, Ward No.- 01, P.S.- Marachi,
District - Patna, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Akash Shankar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 24-03-2026 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 329(3),
126(2), 115(2), 109, 74, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS as well
as Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case as would manifest from the
supplementary affidavit and the informant alleges that on
08.04.2025, at 09:00 a.m., four named accused persons
including the petitioner came on account of dispute which had
occurred the previous night and started abusing her and her
husband. On protest, all accused persons started assaulting her
husband and even assaulted and molested the informant when
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66995 of 2025(4) dt.24-03-2026
2/3
she tried to save her husband, thereafter petitioner and Amir
Mahto fired but her husband was saved. On alarm, villagers
gathered and the accused fled away.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that no reason
for the occurrence is alleged. It is next submitted that no doubt,
it is alleged that petitioner along with Amir Mahto fired but then
no one was injured in the occurrence. It is also submitted that
allegation of firing has been alleged only to give seriousness to
the case. It is further submitted that if the privilege of
anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner will
not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove
his innocence.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, let the petitioner, above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks
from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66995 of 2025(4) dt.24-03-2026
3/3
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial
Court where the case is pending/Successor Court in connection
with Maranchi P.S. Case No. 29 of 2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the
Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his
father, namely, Chharpan Nishad.
8. However, it is made clear that if the Investigating
Officer of the case files an application before the learned Trial
Court bringing to its notice that the petitioner, despite giving
assurance to this Court, is not cooperating in the investigation,
the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail
bonds of the petitioner.
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned
police station through the learned Trial Court.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…