Patna High Court
Bipin Singh @ Jitendra SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was not granted to the second petitioner; the matter is to be dealt with as a regular bail application if he surrenders.
Summary
The petitioners, Bipin Singh and Rahul Singh, filed anticipatory bail applications in a criminal case arising from a land dispute in East Champaran. Petitioners sought anticipatory bail for offences under Sections 127(2), 127(7), 308(3), 308(4), 351(2), 111(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging abduction, assault and criminal intimidation. The court allowed the withdrawal of the first petitioner's application as he had already been arrested, and then considered the second petitioner's request. The State opposed the anticipatory bail, arguing that the allegations indicated active participation in serious offences. The High Court held that the case was more suitable for regular bail and therefore rejected the anticipatory bail plea. It directed that if the second petitioner surrenders within six weeks, a regular bail application may be entertained on its merits.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the second petitioner in view of the alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the nature and gravity of the alleged offences warrant denial of anticipatory bail and consideration of regular bail instead.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 111(2), 127(2), 127(7), 308(3), 308(4), 3(5), 351(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- regular bail
- land dispute
- abduction
- assault
- criminal intimidation
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Patna High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87335 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-212 Year-2025 Thana- MEHSI District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Bipin Singh @ Jitendra Singh Son of Ramayan singh Resident of Village -
Cirecle Office Mehsi, P.S. - Mehsi, Dist. - East Champaran.
2. Rahul Singh @ Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Kumar Singh Son of Rajendra
Chaudhary Resident of Village - Rampurwa Circle Office Mehsi, P.S. -
Mehsi, Dist. - East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath Thakur, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks
permission of the Court to withdraw the present anticipatory
bail application in respect of petitioner no. 1 as he has already
been arrested.
2. Permission is accorded.
3. Accordingly, the present application stands
dismissed as withdrawn in respect of petitioner no.1.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner no. 2 and
learned APP for the State.
5. The petitioner no. 2 apprehends his arrest in
connection with Mehsi P.S. Case No. 212 of 2025 instituted for
the offences under Sections 127(2), 127(7), 308(3), 308(4),
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87335 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/3
351(2), 111(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
6. Prosecution case, in short, is that while the
informant’s brother Arjun Prasad and nephew Abhishek Kumar,
were returning from Mehsi Circle Office after discussing a land
dispute, were allegedly abducted near Keshari Chowk by the
named accused along with unknown persons on motorcycles
and were confined at the house of Mukesh Pathak, assaulted,
and later on, released with threats of death if they approached
the police or visited the disputed land again.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner no.2 submitted
that the petitioner no.2 has falsely been implicated in the present
case due to previous land dispute between the parties which is
evident from the FIR itself. Learned counsel for the petitioner
no.2 submitted that general and omnibus allegation has been
made against him. No specific overt act is alleged against the
petitioner no.2. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner
no.2 that the petitioner no.2 has one criminal antecedent.
8. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner no.2 and
submitted that the petitioner no.2 is a named accused and the
allegations disclose serious offences of abduction, assault and
criminal intimidation arising out of a land dispute and the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87335 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
3/3
manner of occurrence shows active involvement of the
petitioner no.2 and therefore, the petitioner no.2 does not
deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.
9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, nature and gravity of offence, in my view, this is a
fit case of regular bail, and hence, I am not inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioner no.2.
10. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner no.2 is, hereby, rejected.
11. However, if the petitioner no.2 surrenders before
the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today
and prays for regular bail, the same shall be disposed of on its
own merit without being prejudiced by this order.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Alok Verma/-
U T
Checking your session…