Patna High Court
Dharmavir Kumar @ Dharamvir Yadav @ Dharamveer YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioner on a bond with conditions, despite the trial being underway.
Summary
The petitioner, Dharmavir Kumar, was arrested in connection with a land‑dispute‑related assault case (PS Case No. 333 of 2024) and charged under several sections of the Bihar Non‑Specific Act, 2023. He had previously applied for bail, which was denied on 22‑08‑2025. He filed a fresh application seeking renewal of bail, arguing that he was not the principal assailant and that he would cooperate with the trial. The State opposed bail, citing that the trial had commenced and two witnesses had already been examined. The Court, after considering the facts, the framing of charges, and the petitioner’s undertaking to appear and not tamper with evidence, ordered that bail be granted on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions including personal appearance, non‑interference with witnesses, and expeditious trial within six months.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the trial having commenced and witnesses examined
- Whether the petitioner’s undertaking and the nature of the allegations justify granting bail
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- land dispute
- assault
- surety
- trial acceleration
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89324 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-333 Year-2024 Thana- LAXMIPUR District- Jamui
======================================================
Dharmavir Kumar @ Dharamvir Yadav @ Dharamveer Yadav Son of Radhe
Yadav @ Radha Yadav Resident of Village- Kamalu Bela Tukur, P.S.-
Laxmipur, District- Jamui, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Naraian Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Amar Prakash, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Dr.Mrityunjaya Kr.Gautam, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Subodh Kr. Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
4 30-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.
2. The present application has been filed for renewing
his prayer for bail in connection with Laxmipur P.S. Case No.
333 of 2024 for the offence under Sections 191(2), 126(2),
115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 118(2) and 109(1) of BNS, 2023.
3. The allegation in the F.I.R is that accused persons
came variously armed to the house of the informant causing
injuries to the husband of the informant and others. So far as
present petitioner is concerned, there was a direct allegation in
the F.I.R of assaulting the informant’s husband with tangi
causing serious injuries to him.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89324 of 2025(4) dt.30-01-2026
2/4
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the earlier prayer of the petitioner had been
rejected vide order dated 22.08.2025 in Cr. Misc. No.55920 of
2025. He has further submitted that although there is a direct
allegation of assault on the informant’s husband on his head
causing grievous injuries but it is also a fact that there is no
repetition of blow at the hands of the present petitioner. The
occurrence has taken place due to land dispute between the
parties as they are the gotiyas and co-sharer of the plot in
question. It has also been submitted that charges have been
framed and trial has also commenced. The petitioner is in
custody since 22.06.2025 and undertakes to co-operate in the
case/trial.
5. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2,
however, strongly opposed grant of bail on the ground that trial
has commenced and two witnesses have already been examined
and as such, considering the specific allegation against the
petitioner and also taking into consideration the stage of the
case, the petitioner dos not deserve to be granted the privilege of
bail.
6. Having heard the rival contentions of the parties
and having considered the entire facts of the case, it appears that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89324 of 2025(4) dt.30-01-2026
3/4
the present offence arises out of a dispute between gotiyas
relating to land, which has resulted in the present incident. No
doubt the petitioner has been attributed a direct and specific
allegation of assault, nevertheless, considering the fact that
charges have already been framed and witnesses are being
examined and further taking into account the undertaking given
by the petitioner that he shall not cause any delay and shall
appear on each and every date fixed by the Court, the petitioner
is directed to be enlarged on bail in connection with Laxmipur
P.S. Case No. 333 of 2024 on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below
where the case is pending/successor Court on the following
conditions:-
(1) The petitioner shall remain physically present in
the learned trial Court on each date and shall cooperate in the
trial. In case the petitioner is absent on any date without
sufficient cause, the learned trial Court would be at liberty to
cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(2) It is directed that if the petitioner indulges in
threatening the prosecution witnesses or tampering with the
evidence, the prosecution would be at liberty to file cancellation
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89324 of 2025(4) dt.30-01-2026
4/4
of bail and the learned trial Court would dispose of the same in
accordance with law.
(3) The learned trial Court is directed to expedite the
trial and conclude the same at the earliest preferably within a
period of six months.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Harsh/-
U T
Checking your session…