Patna High Court
Suman KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC.
Summary
Petitioner Suman Kumar sought bail for alleged offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 126(2), 118(1), 109, 303(2), 352 and 351(2) of the BNS, 2023, arising from an alleged assault on an informant's family. The prosecution opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences, while the petitioner claimed a clean antecedent and that the allegations were false and the injury was simple. The court noted that the injury was indeed simple and the petitioner had no prior record. Consequently, the court granted bail to Suman Kumar on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC, including cooperation with the trial and non‑tampering with evidence. The bail order also directed the lower court to verify the petitioner’s antecedent and to cancel bail if any concealment is discovered.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the nature of the alleged offences under the BNS, 2023.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and the simple nature of the injury justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 438
- assault
- simple injury
- clean antecedent
- withdrawn application
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89094 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-99 Year-2025 Thana- Mufassil District- Purnia
======================================================
1. Suman Kumar Son of Arun Mehta Resident of Chandi Kathwa, Rani Patra,
P.S.- Mufassil, District - Purnea.
2. Dharam Kumar @ Dharmlal Mehta Son of Jagdish Mehta Resident of
Chandi Kathwa, Rani Patra, P.S.- Mufassil, District - Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Bidhu Ranjan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 12-01-2026 Heard Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel for
the petitioners and Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
during pendency of the present bail application, the petitioner
no. 2, namely, Dharam Kumar @ Dharmlal Mehta has been
arrested. So the present bail application with respect to him has
become infructuous. Hence, he seeks permission to withdrawn
the bail application with respect to petitioner no. 2.
3. Permission is accorded.
4. Accordingly, the present bail application with
respect to petitioner no. 2, namely, Dharam Kumar @ Dharmlal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89094 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
2/4
Mehta stands dismissed as withdrawn as having become
infructuous.
5. The petitioner no. 1 is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Mufassil P.S. Case No. 99 of 2025, F.I.R. dated
21.04.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2),
191(3), 115(2), 126(2), 118(1), 109, 303(2), 352 and 351(2) of
the BNS, 2023.
6. According to prosecution case, this petitioner along
with other accused persons armed with lathi, danda and dabia
brutally assaulted the informant and her family members due to
which they received injuries.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. He further submits that the
allegation as alleged in the F.I.R has been false and fabricated
and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in
the F.I.R. There is case and counter case between the parties. As
per the allegation in the F.I.R, the petitioner along with Arun
Mehta have assaulted to the husband of the informant by means
of dabia due to which he received injury but the injury report of
the injured person suggest that the injury is simple in nature.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89094 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
3/4
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that the injury received by the injured person is simple in nature
and the petitioner has clean antecedent, let the petitioner no. 1,
above named, in the event of his 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) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Purnea in
connection with Mufassil P.S. Case No. 99 of 2025, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and with other following conditions:-
i. Petitioner 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 his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers 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 petitioner and in case at
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89094 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
4/4
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. 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)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…