Patna High Court
Tarkeshwar RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) B.N.S.
Summary
The petitioners, Tarkeshwar Rai, Meena Devi and Sachin Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a 2016 case alleging offences under several sections of the B.N.S and the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that ten armed persons, including two named co‑accused, fired at the informant's house, but the FIR specifically named only the two co‑accused. The petitioners argued that there was no specific allegation against them, that they were over‑implicated, and that they have clean antecedents. The State opposed bail, contending the petitioners were armed and attempted murder. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail with conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S, directing the petitioners to furnish bail bonds and comply with several conditions. The order disposes of the application and clarifies that its observations are not binding during trial.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 438 CrPC in view of the allegations in the FIR.
- Whether the petitioners are specifically implicated in the offences alleged in the FIR.
- Whether the petitioners' clean antecedents and lack of specific charges merit the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 B.N.S
- over‑implication
- clean antecedents
- arms act
- FIR
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77879 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-568 Year-2025 Thana- SIWAN CITY District- Siwan
======================================================
1. Tarkeshwar Rai S/O Late Rameshwar Rai R/o Village- Rampur Kothi,
Digad, P.S.- Bhagwanpur, District- Siwan
2. Meena Devi W/O Tarkeshwar Rai R/o Village- Rampur Kothi, Digad, P.S.-
Bhagwanpur, District- Siwan
3. Sachin Kumar @ Dandan @ Sachin Kumar Ghanghan S/o Tarkeshwar Rai
R/o Village- Rampur Kothi, Digad, P.S.- Bhagwanpur, District- Siwan
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Anjani Parashar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 21-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2.
2. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Siwan (Town) P.S. Case No. 568 of 2016 registered for the
offences under Sections 191(2), 190, 329(3), 115(2), 109 of the
B.N.S and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has
alleged that altogether ten people, all variously armed,
surrounded the house of the informant and fired. It is further
alleged that the two co-accused, namely, Rohit @ Madan and
Rajiv Kumar, fired from their pistol, as told by the husband of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77879 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
2/4
the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that
from mere perusal of the F.I.R., it would be evident that the
specific allegation of firing is upon two persons, namely Rohit
@ Madan and Rajiv Kumar. However, from perusal of the
injury report, it would be evident that the injured has sustained
only one firearm injury of entry and there is another wound that
is exit wound charged margin on right side of upper abdomen, to
show that one firearm injury has been sustained by him. It is
further submitted that there is no specific allegation against the
petitioners herein and in fact, implication of petitioner no. 2 is
the case of over-implication in the present case, who has no
concern whatsoever with the alleged incident. It has further been
submitted that the petitioners carry clean antecedents.
5. Learned APP for the State as well as the learned
counsel for the O.P. No. 2 have vehemently opposed the prayer
for anticipatory bail and submitted that the petitioners had come
variously armed and they had tried to kill the husband of the
informant.
6. Considering the aforesaid submission, facts and
circumstances of the case, let the petitioners above named be
released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77879 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
3/4
before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks
from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten
thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is
pending/successor court in connection with Siwan (Town) P.S.
Case No. 568 of 2016 subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read
with corresponding Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S. as well as
subject to the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioners shall be
their close relative.
(ii) The petitioners shall remain physically present
in the Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates, or
in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of
the petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the
Court concerned.
(iv) If the petitioners are found involved in similar
nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below shall verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77879 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
4/4
any stage it is found that the petitioners have
concealed their criminal antecedents, the court
below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond
of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail
bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall
not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
7. Accordingly, the present application stands
disposed of.
8. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
aditya/-
U
Checking your session…