Pintu KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86897 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-488 Year-2025 Thana- GHOSI District- Jehanabad
                 ======================================================
           1.     Pintu Kumar Son of Late Suresh Prasad
           2.    Savita Devi Wife of Uday Yadav @ Suresh Prasad.
           3.    Sonfi Devi Wife of Late Suresh Prasad.
           4.    Rinku Kumari Wife of Pintu Kumar.
           5.    Aarti Kumari Daughter of Uday Yadav.
                 All Resident of Village- Ratan Bigha, Police Station- Ghosi, District-
                 Jehanabad

                                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Birendra Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Ms.Indu Kumari Srivastava, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   08-01-2026                  Heard Mr.Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the

                   petitioners and Ms.Indu Kumari Srivastava, learned Additional

                   Public Prosecutor for the State.

                                2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in

                   connection with Ghosi P.S.Case No.488 of 2025, FIR dated

                   13.09.2025 registered for the offences punishable under

                   Sections 126(2),115(2),109,303(2),352,351(2),3(5) of BNS,

                   2023.

                                3. The essence of allegation as contained in FIR is

                   that on 10.09.2025 at about 05:00 P.M. while the informant was

                   at his house, suddenly all petitioners along with other co-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86897 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
                                            2/4




          accused came at his house armed with Lathi and Danda, and

          started to hurling abuses. On objection by his nephew accused

          Uday Yadav started assaulting him and other petitioners started

          pelting stones over his house. Accused Uday Kumar gave

          repeated iron rod blow over the head of his nephew due to

          which he sustained head injury and fell unconscious. Thereafter

          other co-accused persons snatched his gold chain and other

          belonging. On this the informant created hue and cry then

          villagers gathered and accused fled away.

                       4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

          petitioners have clean antecedent. The present case is counter

          blast of Ghosi P.S.Case No.486 of 2025 filed by petitioner No.2,

          namely, Savita Devi against the informant and his family

          members, apart from the aforesaid, from a bare perusal of the

          FIR it appears that the date of occurrence as alleged in the FIR

          is 10.09.2025 but the present FIR has been instituted on

          13.09.2025 after delay of about four days without giving any

          explanation of delay. It appears from the FIR that the specific

          allegation of assault is attributed against co-accused person,

          namely, Uday Kumar that he assaulted to the nephew of the

          informant by means of iron rod and there is no specific

          allegation of any assault or overt-act attributed against the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86897 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
                                            3/4




          petitioners in the FIR.

                       5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, has

          vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the

          petitioners.

                       6. Considering the aforesaid facts, petitioners have

          clean antecedent, there is no specific allegation of any assault or

          overt-act attributed against the petitioners in the FIR and there is

          case and counter case, let the petitioners, above named, in the

          event of their arrest or surrender before the court below within a

          period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be

          released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000 (Ten

          Thousand)each with two sureties of the like amount each to the

          satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jehanabad in

          connection with Ghosi P.S.Case No.488 of 2025, subject to the

          conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of

          Criminal Procedure/Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023 and with

          other following conditions:-

                       (I) Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be

          properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court

          and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and

          on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient

          reason, their bail bonds shall be cancelled by the Court below.
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86897 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
                                                           4/4




                                      (II) If the petitioners tamper with the evidence or the

                         witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move

                         for cancellation of bail.

                                      (III) And, further condition that the court below shall

                         verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at

                         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 petitioners. 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.



                                                (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-

U          T