Patna High Court
Raushan KumarversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ANSHUMAN
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to Sunita Devi and Ganesh Sharma but rejected the same for Raushan Kumar, and dismissed the bail application of Venkatesh Sharma as infructuous.
Summary
The Patna High Court considered an anticipatory bail petition filed by three accused – Raushan Kumar, Sunita Devi and Ganesh Sharma – in FIR No.302/2025 alleging assault and related offences under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The State and the informant opposed bail, contending that the injuries were serious and the FIR was not divided into two parts. The court permitted the withdrawal of a separate bail application by Venkatesh Sharma, dismissing it as infructuous. It granted anticipatory bail to Sunita Devi and Ganesh Sharma upon a Rs 30,000 bond and conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., but denied anticipatory bail to Raushan Kumar. The decision was based on the nature of the allegations, the petitioners’ criminal antecedents and the seriousness of the offences.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the bail application of Venkatesh Sharma can be withdrawn as infructuous.
- Whether the FIR constitutes a single offence or two separate parts affecting bail considerations.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 126(1), 126(2), 2(1)(d), 3(5), 351(2), 351(3), 482(2), 74
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 482
- Section 2(1)(d)
- bail withdrawal
- assault
- criminal antecedents
- Gaya district
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75757 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-302 Year-2025 Thana- TEKARI District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Raushan Kumar S/O Ganesh Sharma @ Ganesh Singh Resident Of Village-
Tetariya, P.s.- Tekari, Dist.- Gaya
2. Sunita Devi W/O Venkatesh Sharma Resident Of Village- Tetariya, P.s.-
Tekari, Dist.- Gaya
3. Ganesh Sharma @ Ganesh Singh S/O late Ragho Sharma Resident Of
Village- Tetariya, P.s.- Tekari, Dist.- Gaya
4. Venkatesh Sharma S/O Ganesh Sharma @ Ganesh Singh Resident Of
Village- Tetariya, P.s.- Tekari, Dist.- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aryan Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar, A.P.P
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL ORDER
3 19-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners seek permission
to withdraw the bail application of petitioner no.4 namely,
Venkatesh Sharma, as the same has become infructuous.
3. Permission is granted.
4. As such, the bail application of petitioner no.4
namely, Venkatesh Sharma, stands dismissed, as having become
infructuous.
5. The petitioner nos.1, 2 & 3 are apprehending arrest
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75757 of 2025(3) dt.19-03-2026
2/4
in connection with Tekari P.S. Case No. 302 of 2025 lodged on
29.06.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 126(1),
126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 109, 74, 351(2), 351(3) & 3(5)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
6. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against
five named accused persons including the present petitioners. It
has been alleged in the FIR that initially three accused persons
and subsequently, five accused persons have assaulted the
informant’s side due to which, injury has been caused and
accordingly, they referred to the hospital for treatment.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner nos.1, 2 & 3
submits that they are innocent and have committed no offence.
Counsel submits that the entire FIR is in two parts. In the first
part, allegation is against three persons and in second part, the
allegation is against five persons. He submits that both the
parties are resident of the same village and a long pending
dispute is going on between them. Counsel further submits that
the petitioner no.1 has three criminal antecedents and the
petitioner nos.2 & 3 have two criminal antecedents. Petitioners
are on bail. Counsel submits that the petitioner no.2 is a female
aged about 40 years and she has been made accused in this case
only due to the reason that allegation of scuffling is upon her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75757 of 2025(3) dt.19-03-2026
3/4
husband. Petitioner no.3 is an old man aged about 72 years.
Counsel further submits that petitioners are ready to fulfill all
the conditions whatsoever shall be imposed upon them.
8. Learned counsel for the informant vehemently
opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioners and submits that
counsel for the petitioners is trying to mislead the court by
saying so that the FIR is in two parts. He submits that actually,
the FIR is not in two parts, rather, initially, three persons and
subsequently, five persons have assaulted the informant’s side
due to which, injury has been caused. He also submits that in the
rejection order, the injuries have been acknowledged that the
injury no.1 is grievous in nature and injury no.2 is simple in
nature.
9. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
bail of the petitioners and submits the injuries have been
acknowledged in the rejection order.
10. After going through the record, it transpires that
the allegation against petitioner no.1 Raushan Kumar is that he
has scuffled initially with the informant’s side and caused injury
to them. The petitioner no.2 is a female and allegation of
scuffling is upon her husband and the petitioner no.3 is an old
man aged about 72 years.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75757 of 2025(3) dt.19-03-2026
4/4
11. As such, in the present facts and circumstances of
this case, let the petitioner no.2 namely, Sunita Devi and
petitioner no.3 namely, Ganesh Sharma @ Ganesh Singh be
released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender
before the Trial Court within a period of 4 weeks from today, on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand)
each as mentioned in Section 2(1)(d) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 to
the satisfaction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI,
Gaya, in connection with Tekari P.S. Case No. 302 of 2025,
subject to the conditions as laid down U/s 482(2) of the
B.N.S.S., 2023.
12. So far as petitioner no.1 namely, Raushan Kumar
is concerned, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to him.
Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner
no.1 is hereby rejected.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-
U T
Checking your session…