Patna High Court
Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court denied regular bail to Pankaj Kumar but granted regular bail to Tinku Kumar.
Summary
The petitioners, Pankaj Kumar (also known as Pankaj Yadav) and Tinku Kumar (also known as Tipu Kumar), were arrested in connection with a FIR under multiple offences of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including assault and other serious charges. They applied for regular bail for the second time; the earlier bail application had been rejected. The court noted that a specific allegation of assault with a khanti was made against Pankaj Kumar, whereas only a general, omnibus allegation existed against Tinku Kumar. Considering the gravity of the specific charge, the court denied bail to Pankaj Kumar, but granted bail to Tinku Kumar on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties. The order also directed the District & Sessions Judge to expedite commitment, framing of charges, and trial, as the accused had been in custody since November 2024.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to Pankaj Kumar given the specific assault allegation under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether regular bail should be granted to Tinku Kumar despite only a general allegation against him.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 329(3), 352
Subjects
- bail
- regular bail
- criminal procedure
- assault
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- partial bail
- specific allegation
- general allegation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88990 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-304 Year-2024 Thana- SURYAGARHA District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Yadav Son Of Upendra Yadav Resident Of Village -
Badi Gospur Khen, Tarni Asthan, P.S- Suryagraha, District- Lakhisarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P.N. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Amit Anand
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Bhanu Pratap Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 12-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned APP for the State.
2. This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner seeking bail
in connection with Suryagarha P.S. Case No. 304 of 2024
registered for the offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190,
126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 329(3), 103(1) and 352 of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was
rejected on 30.04.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 24559 of 2025, which
reads as follows:-
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek regular bail in
connection with Surajgarha P.S. Case No. 304 of 2024
registered for the offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3),
190, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 329(3), 103(i) and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88990 of 2025(3) dt.12-05-2026
2/3
352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. Altogether 14 persons are named in the
FIR. The allegation against the petitioner no. 01 namely
Pankaj Yadav @ Pankaj Kumar is that he has assaulted
the victim with a khanti. So far as petitioner no. 02 is
concerned, there is no specific allegation of assault
against him. There is general and omnibus allegation
against the petitioner no. 02.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners
has submitted that the petitioners are in custody since
03.11.2024 and claim clean antecedent.
5. Learned counsel for the informant has
vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioners.
6. Considering the specific allegation of
assault against the petitioner no. 01 namely Pankaj
Kumar @ Pankaj Kumar, his prayer for regular bail is
hereby rejected.
7. So far as petitioner no. 02 namely Tinku
Kumar @ Tipu Kumar is concerned, considering the fact
that there is general and omnibus allegation against him,
his prayer for regular bail is allowed.
8. Accordingly, let the petitioner no. 02,
above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand)with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai/concerned Court
below in connection with Surajgarha P.S. Case No. 304 of
2024.
9. This application is partly allowed.
4. The petitioner is the assailant of the deceased. He is
in custody since 03.11.2024.
5. From the Trial Court report, it appears that the
cognizance has been taken on 23.02.2026 and the case is
pending for commitment.
6. Considering the nature and the gravity of the
offence, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, this application for regular bail stands rejected.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88990 of 2025(3) dt.12-05-2026
3/3
7. The Principal District & Sessions Judge,
Lakhisarai, is directed to ensure that the case is committed to the
Court of Sessions at the earliest, charges are framed and the trial
is commenced as the petitioner has been in custody since
03.11.2024.
8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Principal District & Sessions Judge, Lakhisarai through FAX or
e-mail for immediate compliance.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.