Patna High Court
Nitish KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Nitish Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR (Garahiya Bazar PS Case No. 61 of 2025) alleged his involvement in a violent assault on a minor, charging him under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with others, inflicted injuries using a knife, iron rod, and by applying pressure on the victim's chest and vital organs. The petitioner argued that the FIR was an omnibus complaint, that the victim himself had a criminal background, and that no chest injury was proven, citing a prior relief granted to a co-accused. The informant’s counsel countered that the petitioner’s role was established and highlighted his criminal antecedents. Considering the lack of concrete evidence of the specific assault on the chest and the relief already granted to a co-accused, the court inclined to grant anticipatory bail with stringent conditions, including sureties, regular appearances before the trial court and police, and prohibition on tampering with witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail despite the serious charges under the IPC.
- Whether the evidence in the FIR sufficiently links the petitioner to the alleged assault.
- Whether the prior relief granted to a co-accused influences the grant of bail to the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 115, 118, 126, 190, 191, 303, 351, 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Indian Penal Code
- assault
- bail conditions
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68034 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2025 Thana- Gadhiya Bazar District- East Champaran
======================================================
Nitish Kumar S/o- Munilal Bhagat @ Munnilal Bhagat Village- Mahauta PS-
Garahiya Bazar Distt- East Champran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Usha Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP
For the Informant : Ms. Harsha Sashwat, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 Heard Mrs. Usha Kumari, learned counsel for the
petitioner duly assisted by Ms. Pragya Sinha, Ms. Harsha
Sashwat representing the informant and Mr. Bhanu Pratap
Singh, learned APP.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Garahiya Bazar P.S. Case No. 61 of 2025 for
the offence under sections 191(2), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1),
109, 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 351(3) of the BNS lodged on
09.04.2025 by the informant, Urmila Devi.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that upon hearing the noise near a shop, she reached the place
and saw her son, Shravan Kumar is beaten by accused persons.
Alok Kumar gave knife blow while Rajnish Kumar and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68034 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/4
Jamaluddin gave iron rod blow. Further allegation against Vijay
Kumar and Nitish Kumar is of putting their legs on the
neck/chest of the injured. Allegation further is against Sitaram
Shah of putting his leg on the vital organ of the injured and then
on the provocation of Dinanath Prasad, the others also assaulted.
This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a
bare perusal of the FIR would show that omnibus allegation has
been made against the petitioner, each and every family
members have been roped in and the injured himself is a
criminal having cases lodged against him which is reflected
from the Annexure-3 showing him with a pistol which has been
uploaded on the Facebook.
5. The further submission is that though injury has
been found on the head but there is no injury on the chest and
the last submission is that Rajnish Kumar who has been
assigned the role of using iron rod has been extended relief vide
order dated 25.08.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 56291 of 2025 by a
Coordinate Bench.
6. Learned counsel for the informant, Ms. Harsha
Shashwat opposes the prayer and taken this Court to the FIR to
show that the role has also been assigned to this petitioner and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68034 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
3/4
the petitioner has criminal antecedent also.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
as also that no injury has been found on the chest, it has been
informed that the petitioner is a student, co-accused person,
namely Rajnish Kumar against whom specific allegation of
assault using iron rod is there has been extended relief, as
recorded above, in that background, this Court is inclined to
extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail with conditions.
8. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of
arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the
receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned CJM, Motihari, East Champaran in
connection with Garahiya Bazar P.S. Case No. 61 of 2025
subject to the following conditions:
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official
document (Aadhaar Card/Voter ID Card/Pan Card/Driving
License) to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68034 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
4/4
bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner shall appear before the concerned
police station every month for six months to mark his
attendance and after the end of the period, the certificate shall be
submitted before the Trial Court failing which steps shall be
taken for the cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner 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;
(v) the petitioner shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U T
Checking your session…