Patna High Court
Raj Kumar Ram @ Rajkumar BindversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the offences were serious and the allegations, though not detailed, were sufficient to withhold bail.
Summary
The petitioners, Raj Kumar Ram and Satyam Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a criminal case (Chainpur P.S. Case No. 278 of 2025) alleging offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, along with other accused, assaulted an informant causing injuries. The petitioners contended that the allegations were vague, that no specific overt act was attributed to them, and that they had no prior criminal record, citing that a co‑accused had already been granted anticipatory bail. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the use of weapons and the seriousness of the assault. The Court, after considering the nature and gravity of the offences, declined to grant anticipatory bail, noting the lack of sufficient justification to override the seriousness of the charges. The Court directed that if the petitioners surrender within six weeks, they may apply for regular bail, which will be decided on its merits.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners accused of assault under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the allegations against the petitioners constitute a specific overt act sufficient to justify denial of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the seriousness and gravity of the offences preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- assault
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- high court
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71419 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-278 Year-2025 Thana- CHAINPUR District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
1. Raj Kumar Ram @ Rajkumar Bind S/O Vasudeo Bind Resident of village-
Sherpur, P.S.- Chainpur, District- Kaimur at Bhabua
2. Satyam Kumar S/O Rajkumar Bind Resident of village- Sherpur, P.S.-
Chainpur, District- Kaimur at Bhabua
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajani Kant Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Chainpur P.S. Case No. 278 of 2025 instituted for the
offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109, 352, 351(2), 3(5)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. Prosecution case, in short, is that all the accused
persons including the petitioners assaulted the informant due to
which he sustained injuries.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71419 of 2025(3) dt.09-02-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that general and
omnibus allegation has been made against the petitioners. No
specific overt act is alleged against the petitioners. It has been
submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners have
no criminal antecedent. The co-accused person has already been
granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 06.01.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 802026 of
2025.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioners stating that
these petitioners assaulted the informant with weapons
repeatedly and therefore, they do not deserve to be released on
anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, nature and gravity of offence, this Court is not
inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail to the petitioners is, hereby, rejected.
8. However, if the petitioners surrender before the
learned court below within a period of six weeks from today and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71419 of 2025(3) dt.09-02-2026
3/3
pray for regular bail, the same shall be disposed of on its own
merit without being prejudiced by this order.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Alok Verma/-
U T
Checking your session…