Patna High Court
Ramchandra MehtaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to bond and conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Summary
Ramchandra Mehta applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case involving offences under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including assault, extortion, and rioting. He contended that the allegations were false and stemmed from a land dispute, noting that a prior jamabandi cancellation suit had been decided in his favour. The petitioner highlighted that the medical report did not show a head injury to the informant, contrary to the prosecution’s claim. The State opposed bail but could not refute the petitioner’s claim regarding the nature of the injuries. After considering the submissions, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving serious offences under the BNSS.
- Whether the petitioner is likely to abscond, tamper with evidence, or influence witnesses.
- Whether the allegations against the petitioner are false and arise from a land dispute.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 482(2), 74
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- land dispute
- assault
- extortion
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 482
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87956 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-132 Year-2025 Thana- KISHANPUR District- Supaul
======================================================
Ramchandra Mehta S/o Late Domi Mehta Resident of Village- Fulwariya,
Ward No 12, PS- Kishanpur, District- Supaul
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Satyam Anand, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Suresh Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 10-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 109, 74, 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges
that accused persons including the petitioner came and started
abusing and demanded extortion, on objection, the petitioner
assaulted causing injury on head, thereafter Manish assaulted by
farsa causing fracture of hand and also assaulted his wife by
farsa causing injury on head, while Ashish and Shiv acted
inappropriately with his wife and Anju snatched his wife’s chain
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87956 of 2025(3) dt.10-03-2026
2/3
while Ashish assaulted his mother by farsa on shoulder and
thereafter the accused persons looted household articles.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant on account of dispute relating to land. It is next
submitted that petitioner and the informant are agnates and are
having dispute relating to land. It is further submitted that
Balram Mehta had instituted Jamabandi Cancellation Case No.
211 of 2022 against Ramchandra Mehta (petitioner herein) in
the court of Additional District Magistrate, Supaul and
Jamabandi Cancellation Case No. 211 of 2022 came to be
rejected by an order dated 28-3-2023, as such the case was
decided in favour of the petitioner. It is also submitted that since
land dispute is brewing in between the parties as such on the
date of occurrence, an altercation took place in which both sides
assaulted each other and from side of the petitioner Kishanpur
P.S. Case No. 133 of 2025 came to be instituted against the
informant and his side. It is further submitted that though it is
alleged that petitioner assaulted the informant by rod causing
injury on head, but then from perusal of the injury report, it
would manifest that no injury was found on head of the
informant rather two injuries on non-vital part of the body were
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87956 of 2025(3) dt.10-03-2026
3/3
opined to be grievous and the injury near eye-brow was opined
to be simple. It is thus submitted that on account of dispute
relating to land, the occurrence took place.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner, but then is not in a position to
rebut the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner that no injury on head of the informant was
found and injuries which have been opined to be grievous are on
non-vital part of the body.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or
surrender 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 Kishanpur P.S.
Case No. 132 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…