Patna High Court
Bhabhuti Rajak @ Naushad Miya @ Naushad AliversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail is denied to petitioner no. 1 but granted to petitioner no. 2 subject to statutory conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, Bhabhuti Rajak (Naushad Miya) and Maksud Raj, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 290/2025 alleging assault on an informant with a lathi and knife, resulting in grievous injuries. The FIR charges them under several sections of the B.N.S. Act, 2023, and the petitioners claim they have clean antecedents and are falsely implicated. The court examined the specific allegation and medical evidence against petitioner no. 1, finding a direct charge of knife assault causing grievous hurt, and therefore denied anticipatory bail to him. For petitioner no. 2, the court noted the absence of any specific allegation in the FIR and his clean record, and granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S. Act. The order also imposed strict compliance conditions, including cooperation with the trial and non‑tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner no. 1 (Bhabhuti Rajak) in view of the specific allegation and medical evidence.
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner no. 2 (Maksud Raj) in the absence of a specific allegation and given his clean antecedent.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 109, 115(1), 118(1), 127(1), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 438(2), 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- grievous hurt
- false implication
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 B.N.S.
- medical evidence
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89584 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-290 Year-2025 Thana- BANIAPUR District- Saran
======================================================
1. Bhabhuti Rajak @ Naushad Miya @ Naushad Ali Son of Late Habib @ Late
Habib Miya Resident of Village- Amaw, Police Station- Baniyapur, District-
Saran
2. Maksud @ Maksud Raj Son of- Late Habib @ Late Habib Miyan Resident
of Village - Amav, Police Station - Baniyapur, District -Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ankur Prakash Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 12-01-2026 Heard Mr. Ankur Prakash Sinha, learned counsel for
the petitioners and Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin, learned APP for
the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Baniyapur P.S. Case No. 290 of 2025, F.I.R.
dated 28.06.2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 127(1), 115(1), 118(1), 109, 351(2), 352, 3(5) of the
B.N.S.
3. Allegation against the petitioners is that they
along with other co-accused persons have assaulted the
informant with lathi on head. There is allegation of assault by
knife on the head of the informant by accused petitioner namely
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89584 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
2/4
Bhabhuti Rajal @ Naushad Miya due to which causing injury
on the head.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have clean antecedents and they have been falsely
implicated in the present case. He further submits that the
allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the
petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged in the
F.I.R. As per allegation in the F.I.R. the petitioner no. 1,
namely, Bhabhuti Rajak @ Naushad Miya @ Naushad Ali has
assaulted the informant by means of knife and as per allegation
against the petitioner no. 2, namely, Maksud @ Maksud Raj is
that there is no specific allegation against him in the F.I.R. and
the injury report of the informant suggests that he has received
injury which is quoted below:
“ cut wound over back chest 2’’ x ½’’ & NCCT done,
of fracture of left temporal bone is found & patient
was referred to P.M.C.H. where he was admitted till
05.07.2025. Left side lung contusion (haemothorox)
injuries are found to be grievous in nature due to
sharp instrument & due to hard & blunt object”.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89584 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
3/4
6. Considering the aforesaid facts that there is
specific and direct allegation against petitioner no. 1 supported
by medical evidence as well as injury inflicted upon the
informant is grievous in nature, I am not inclined to grant the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner no. 1, namely,
Bhabhuti Rajak @ Naushad Miya @ Naushad Ali in connection
with Baniyapur P.S. Case No. 290 of 2025. Prayer for
anticipatory bail of petitioner no. 1, namely, Bhabhuti Rajak @
Naushad Miya @ Naushad Ali is rejected.
7. As regards the petitioner no. 2, namely, Maksud @
Maksud Raj is concerned, there is no specific allegation against
him in the F.I.R. and apart from that petitioner no. 2 having
clean antecedent, let the petitioner no. 2, 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/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Saran at
Chapra in connection with Baniyapur P.S. Case No. 290 of
2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/ Section 482(2) of
BNSS, 2023 and with other following conditions :-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89584 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026
4/4
(1) Petitioner no. 2 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.
(2) If the petitioner no. 2 tampers with the evidence
or the witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
(3) And, further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner no. 2 and in case
at any stage, it is found that the petitioner no. 2 has concealed
his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner no. 2. 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)
Ibrar//-
U T
Checking your session…