Patna High Court
Mojib Ansari @ Mujib AnsariversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied for petitioner No. 3 but granted for petitioners No. 1, 2 and 4.
Summary
The petitioners, four villagers from West Champaran, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case alleging assault, looting and firing of a pistol under numerous sections of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. They claimed the case was fabricated due to a long‑standing land dispute and that no firearm injuries were sustained. The State opposed bail, emphasizing specific accusations, especially that petitioner No. 3 allegedly assaulted the informant’s son causing a grievous eye injury. The court held that because the allegation against petitioner No. 3 was specific and involved grievous injury, anticipatory bail could not be granted to him. Conversely, the accusations against petitioners No. 1, 2 and 4 were deemed general, and the court granted them anticipatory bail subject to a bond and sureties, disposing of the application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to each petitioner under the applicable criminal procedure provisions.
- Whether the nature and specificity of the allegations against petitioner No. 3 justify denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- B.N.S. — s. 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 303(2), 308(3), 324(4), 329(4), 76
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- grievous injury
- land dispute
- assault
- firearms
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 438
- Section 482
- Arms Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89447 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-120 Year-2025 Thana- DHANAHA District- West Champaran
======================================================
1. Mojib Ansari @ Mujib Ansari S/o Late Rogi Ansari @ Late Rogi Miya R/o
Village - Ranglalahi Jolahapatti, P.S - Dhanaha, District - West Champaran
2. Meraj Ansari @ Meraj S/o Mojib Ansari R/o Village - Ranglalahi
Jolahapatti, P.S - Dhanaha, District - West Champaran
3. Fakaruddin Ansari @ Fakaruddin S/o Mojib Ansari R/o Village - Ranglalahi
Jolahapatti, P.S - Dhanaha, District - West Champaran
4. Dinesh Yadav S/o Banhu Yadav @ Bandhu Yadav R/o Village - Ranglalahi
Jolahapatti, P.S - Dhanaha, District - West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Ramendra Kumar Bharti, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Shyam Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 16-03-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 191(2),
191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 308(3), 303(2), 76,
324(4) and 329(4) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that on
20.04.2025, all the F.I.R. named accused persons, including this
petitioner and 20 unknown persons, abused and assaulted
informant and others and also looted household articles. It is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89447 of 2025(3) dt.16-03-2026
2/3
alleged that Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 4 fired three rounds from
country made pistol and fled away and Petitioner No. 3
assaulted son of informant, namely Nitish Kumar with spear
causing injury near his eye.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and
have committed no offence. Both parties are co-villagers and
due to long standing land dispute, this false and concocted case
has been lodged. Though Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are alleged
to have fired three rounds but no one has sustained any fire arm
injuries. Rest of the allegations are ornamental in order to make
the case grave.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioners and submitted that petitioners are named in the
F.I.R. with specific accusation that they, along with other
accused persons, abused and assaulted informant and others.
Petitioner No. 3 assaulted son of informant, namely Nitish
Kumar, due to which he sustained injury near his eyes and
doctor has opined the nature of injury as grievous.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, specific and direct nature of accusation and nature of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89447 of 2025(3) dt.16-03-2026
3/3
injuries allegedly caused by Petitioner No. 3, the prayer for
grant of anticipatory bail to Petitioner No. 3 is rejected.
7. So far as Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are concerned,
considering the facts and circumstances of the case and general
and omnibus nature of accusation, the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail to Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 4 is allowed.
8. Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender within
a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named
Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 4 be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Bagaha, West Champaran in connection
with Dhanaha P.S. Case No. 120 of 2025, subject to condition as
laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S..
9. With the aforesaid directions, this application
stands disposed of.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…