Patna High Court
Rajendra TiwariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond and surety conditions, noting the lack of specific allegation against him.
Summary
Petitioner Rajendra Tiwari, a 69‑year‑old man with a clean record, was implicated in an FIR (PS‑212/2025) alleging offences under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Sections 25(1‑b)(a), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act, stemming from the alleged killing of an informant's son. The FIR specifically attributes the firearm injury to Santosh, the petitioner's son, while the petitioner is alleged only in a general, omnibus manner. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, arguing that no specific allegation of participation or intent was made against him. The State and the informant’s counsel opposed the bail but could not refute the claim that the charge against the petitioner was non‑specific. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the BNSS, subject to a bail bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, and conditioned the bail on the petitioner’s cooperation with the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the FIR contains only a general, omnibus allegation against the petitioner.
- Whether the petitioner is specifically implicated under the relevant provisions of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and the Arms Act.
- Whether the conditions imposed under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) BNSS are appropriate.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)(a), 26, 27, 35
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 103(1), 3(5), 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- general allegation
- omnibus charge
- Arms Act
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- clean antecedent
- bail conditions
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83979 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-212 Year-2025 Thana- RAMGARH District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
Rajendra Tiwari S/O Amardeo Tiwari R/O Village- Anantpura, P.S.- Ramgarh,
District- Kaimur, Bhabua
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Subhash Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 05-02-2026 1. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner,
learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the
BNS as well as Sections 25(1-b)(a), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is aged about 69 years and is a person with clean
antecedent and the informant alleges that his son was coming back
home after cleaning the temple, when he was intercepted by the
accused persons including the petitioner and the accused persons said
to kill him on which Santosh fired from the roof top of Mahima
Shaw but missed thereafter again fired causing injury on chest
leading to his death.
4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83979 of 2025(2) dt.05-02-2026
2/3
petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the
instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that from perusal
of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that specific
allegation of causing firearm injury to the deceased is against
Santosh. It is next submitted that apart from Santosh, his entire
family members came to be implicated including the petitioner who
is his father. It is also submitted that from perusal of the allegation as
alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant alleges that all
the accused persons said to kill the son of the informant. It is further
submitted that a person who has remained a person with clean
antecedent for 69 years of his life all of a sudden has been made a
criminal and the FIR does not even remotely disclose the reason for
the occurrence. It is reiterated and submitted that since Santosh was
involved in the killing of the son of the informant, as such, his entire
family members came to be implicated with general and omnibus
allegation. It is next submitted that petitioner will not abscond rather
will cooperate in the investigation to prove his innocence.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant opposed the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner but then are not in a position to
rebut the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that specific allegation of causing firearm
injury to the deceased is against Santosh and no specific allegation is
alleged against the petitioner, rather the allegation is general and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83979 of 2025(2) dt.05-02-2026
3/3
omnibus in nature.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner, let the petitioner above-named, in
the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial court
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 Ramgarh P.S. Case No. 212 of 2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2)
of the BNSS.
7. However, it is made clear that if the investigating
officer of the case files an application bringing to the notice of the
learned trial court that petitioner despite giving assurance to this
Court is not cooperating in the investigation, the learned trial court
shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…