Patna High Court
Raja Babu Patel @ Raja Babu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioners, subject to bond and conditions, noting the simple nature of injury and their fair antecedent.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of Patels from Gamhariya Kala, sought relief fearing arrest in connection with Darpa P.S. Case No.34 of 2024, which alleged offences including robbery, assault and other IPC crimes. They contended that the incident stemmed from a land dispute that escalated into a free fight, resulting in only simple injuries to the informant. The State argued that although the petitioners had earlier been granted the benefit of Section 41(1) CrPC, the Sessions Judge rejected their anticipatory bail because the investigating officer failed to produce the case diary, creating a fresh apprehension of arrest. The Court examined the nature of the injury, the petitioners' clean antecedent and the prior benefit under Section 41(1). Considering these factors, the Court ordered that the petitioners be released on bail if arrested or they surrender within four weeks, subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and compliance with Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail/release on bail despite the Sessions Judge's rejection on the ground of non‑production of the case diary
- Whether the nature of the alleged injury and the petitioners' antecedent justify granting bail
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 41, 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 324, 341, 354, 379, 447, 448, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 41 CrPC
- bail conditions
- land dispute
- assault
- robbery
- simple injury
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Patna High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73477 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-34 Year-2024 Thana- DARPA District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Raja Babu Patel @ Raja Babu Kumar S/o Pappu Patel R/o Village -
Gamhariya Kala, P.S - Darpa, District - East Champaran
2. Shankar Patel S/o Harendra Patel R/o Village - Gamhariya Kala, P.S - Darpa,
District - East Champaran
3. Harendra Patel S/o Late Jagan Patel R/o Village - Gamhariya Kala, P.S -
Darpa, District - East Champaran
4. Mukesh Patel S/o Harendra Patel R/o Village - Gamhariya Kala, P.S - Darpa,
District - East Champaran
5. Amilal Patel @ Amiri Patel @ Amini Patel S/o Harendra Patel R/o Village -
Gamhariya Kala, P.S - Darpa, District - East Champaran
6. Rakesh Patel S/o Harendra Patel R/o Village - Gamhariya Kala, P.S - Darpa,
District - East Champaran
7. Bhulan Patel S/o Harendra Patel R/o Village - Gamhariya Kala, P.S - Darpa,
District - East Champaran
8. Hari Shankar Patel S/o Achchhelal Patel R/o Village - Gamhariya Kala, P.S -
Darpa, District - East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Harsha Shashwat, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners and
learned Advocate for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Darpa P.S. Case No.34 of 2024 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 447, 448, 379, 354, 354B,
324, 307, 504 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73477 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
3. Allegedly, in the fateful night, while the informant
was sleeping in his house, in the meanwhile, all the FIR named
accused persons variously armed with iron rod, bhala, farsa and
country made pistol barged into the house and looted valuables.
It is further alleged that petitioner no.8 assaulted the informant
by means of iron rod due to which he sustained injury on his
head and eye, besides there is further allegation against other
accused persons of assaulting and abusing the informant.
4. The learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted
that in fact both the parties are bickering over the land dispute
and the present case is nothing but an offshoot of the same
which resulted into a free fight leading to some unfortunate
injury. There is a counter version of the present case being
Darpa P.S. Case No. 36 of 2024 instituted by petitioner no.8.
The injury which is alleged to have been sustained to the
informant, has been found to be simple in nature as as is evident
from the injury report. The petitioners bear fair antecedent.
5. The learned Advocate for the State fairly submitted
that considering the materials available on record, the
petitioners had been earlier extended the benefit of Section
41(1) of the CrPC and, as such, there is no apprehension of their
arrest at that stage. However, it is further submitted that since
the learned Sessions Judge rejected the petitioners’ prayer
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73477 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
for anticipatory bail solely on the ground that the Investigating
Officer failed to produce the case diary, a fresh apprehension of
arrest has now arisen.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by
the learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note
of the materials available on record, especially the fact that
initially the petitioners were accorded the privilege of Section
41(1) of the CrPC, besides the nature of injury is found to be
simple and the fair antecedent of the petitioners, let the above
named petitioners, be released on bail, in the event of their
arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional
Judicial Magistrate, Motihari, East Champaran in connection
with Darpa P.S. Case No.34 of 2024, subject to the condition as
laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, with further
condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family
members of the petitioners.
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
U T
Checking your session…