Patna High Court
Ramdhir Singh @ Ramdhar Singh @ Randhir Singh @ RamdhirversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail subject to the conditions imposed under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) BNSS.
Summary
The petitioner, Ramdhir Singh, was named in an FIR alleging assault, grievous hurt and attempted murder arising from a property dispute with his cousin, the informant. The FIR was lodged six days after the alleged incident and later amended to include Section 307 of the IPC, raising questions about the propriety of the charge and the timing of the non‑bailable warrant. The petitioner, claiming a clean antecedent, sought anticipatory bail, arguing that the delay in filing the FIR and the addition of a serious charge rendered the prosecution’s case weak. The State opposed the bail but could not refute the petitioner’s contentions regarding the FIR’s deficiencies. The Court granted anticipatory bail, directing the petitioner to furnish a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and to comply with conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC given the nature of the offences alleged.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the subsequent addition of Section 307 affect the grant of bail.
- Whether a non‑bailable warrant had been issued and its impact on the bail application.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- FIR delay
- section 307 IPC
- non‑bailable warrant
- property dispute
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73087 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2024 Thana- Amdanda District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
Ramdhir Singh @ Ramdhar Singh @ Randhir Singh @ Ramdhir S/O
Panchanand Singh R/O village - Rani Bamia, P.S.- Amdanda, Dist.-
Bhagalpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Devendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP
Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 27-02-2026 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 341, 323,
504, 506, 325, 307 and 308/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The Station House Officer and the Investigating
Officer of the case, in compliance of the order dated 11.02.2026,
are present in the Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that on 07.06.2024, at about 10.30 P.M., when he was
having dinner, his uncle Panchanan Singh came and called him
and when the informant came out of his house, the FIR named
accused persons including the petitioner started abusing him. On
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73087 of 2025(3) dt.27-02-2026
2/4
protest, accused persons assaulted the informant by lathi, danda
causing injury on head and also suffered fracture of nasal bone,
on alarm, villagers gathered and accused persons threatened to
vacate the house or else the informant and his family will be
killed and thereafter fled.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would
manifest that on account of dispute relating to property, the
occurrence is alleged to have been committed. It is further
submitted that petitioner and the informant are own cousin. It is
next submitted that allegation of assault is not specific and the
date of occurrence is 07.06.2024 and the FIR came to be
instituted on 13.06.2024 i.e. after a delay of more than six days
which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution. It is
also submitted that had the injured been assaulted in the manner
as alleged in the FIR in that event his fardbeyan would have
been recorded at the hospital and if the informant was not in a
position to get his fardbeyan recorded in that event any family
members on his behalf could have instituted the FIR but then
the FIR has been instituted based on written application of the
informant on 13.06.2024. It is thus submitted that whether the
occurrence as alleged ever took place or not is also not clear or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73087 of 2025(3) dt.27-02-2026
3/4
else the hospital would have informed the police that injured has
been admitted in the hospital. It is further submitted that initially
when the case was instituted, it was for the offences which carry
punishment of seven years and less but on 07.10.2024 an
application was given by the police for adding Section 307 of
the Indian Penal Code in the FIR. It is next submitted that
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code came to be added in the
FIR by an order dated 04.07.2025 but then an application
seeking non-bailable warrant was filed much prior to that.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State though opposes the
prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner but then is not in a
position to rebut the submissions of the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner that FIR came to be
instituted based on written application of the informant six days
after the occurrence and initially when the FIR was instituted
the same was with respect to offences which carry punishment
of seven years and less and non-bailable warrant of arrest was
sought by the police even before Section 307 of the Indian Penal
Code was added and an application seeking non-bailable
warrant of arrest was filed prior to Section 307 of the Indian
Penal Code being added.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73087 of 2025(3) dt.27-02-2026
4/4
petitioner at this stage submits that non-bailable warrant of
arrest till date has not been issued by the Court and the said
submission is not disputed by the learned A.P.P.. based on
instruction. It is further submitted that petitioner is not a
criminal.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties 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 of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case
is pending/Successor Court in connection with Amdanda P.S.
Case No. 60 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the BNSS.
9. The personal appearance of the Station House
Officer and the Investigating Officer of the case is dispensed
with.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…