Patna High Court
Vikash KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with conditions, finding that the circumstances did not warrant denial of bail.
Summary
Vikash Kumar sought anticipatory bail in connection with Teghra P.S. Case No. 266 of 2025, which alleged assault under several sections of the Bihar Negotiable Substances Act and a newly added Section 103(1). The FIR described a dispute over building construction that led to an armed assault on family members, resulting in the death of Surendra Yadav. The petitioner argued that the FIR specifically named only Harinandan Yadav for assault, that injuries to other victims were simple, and that the post‑mortem showed Surendra Yadav died of chronic disease with no external injuries. The State opposed bail, citing the omnibus nature of the allegations and the death of a victim. The Court, noting the lack of serious injuries, the absence of criminal antecedents, and the post‑mortem findings, granted anticipatory bail with stringent conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate exercise of discretion by the Court in granting anticipatory bail when the allegations are omnibus and a victim has died?
- Does the absence of external injuries and the cause of death being a chronic disease justify granting anticipatory bail?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- omnibus allegation
- assault
- death of victim
- post‑mortem report
- simple injuries
- Section 438
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89908 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-266 Year-2025 Thana- TEGHRHA District- Begusarai
======================================================
Vikash Kumar Son of Late Ashok Yadav R/O Village- Marasaiti, Ward No.-
07, P.S.- Teghra, District-Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 28-01-2026 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for
the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Teghra P.S. Case No. 266 of 2025 for the offence registered
under sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 74, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of
the BNS and newly added Section 103(1) of the BNS.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that due to the construction of building, the dispute took place
and the accused persons armed variously came and assaulted all
the family members. Allegation against Harinandan Yadav is of
assaulting the informant while omnibus allegation against other
accused persons is/are of giving blow to the family members
including Surendra Yadav. This followed the FIR.
4. The allegation is of 22.08.2025, the FIR was lodged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89908 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
2/4
on 24.08.2025 and subsequently Surendra Yadav died on
01.10.2025 and as such, necessary section has been added in the
present case.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that a
perusal of the FIR would show that specific allegation is against
Harinandan Yadav of assaulting the informant. So far as other
petitioners are concerned, omnibus allegation has been made.
Further, the injury report shows that in the assault assigned to
these petitioners, the informant’s side have sustained simple
injuries. Further, so far as the case of Surendra Yadav is
concerned, he has taken this Court to the post-mortem report to
show that he was an old person and died not due to any injury
but chronic disease. The last submission is that the entire post-
mortem report nowhere shows any external injuries, save and
except incorporating that one scar mark is there over mid back.
5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand,
opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail submitting that though
omnibus in nature, all the accused persons assaulted and one of
the person died.
6. Considering the submissions of the parties as also
taking note of the post-mortem report of Surendra Yadav,
omnibus allegation is against these petitioners, none have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89908 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
3/4
criminal antecedent, said Surendra Yadav though died, no injury
found on his person, death, others have been found to have
sustained simple injuries, in that background, this Court is
inclined to grant him the anticipatory bail with conditions.
7. Let the petitioner in the event of arrest or surrender
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the
order, shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail of
Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Begusarai in connection with Teghra P.S. Case No.
266 of 2025 subject to condition as laid down under Section
438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
members/relatives of the petitioner, who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card, PAN Card, Driving License, Voter ID)
to show his bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner shall appear on each and every date
before the Trial court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail
bond by the Trial court itself;
(iii) the petitioner shall appear before the concerned
police station every month for next six months to mark
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89908 of 2025(2) dt.28-01-2026
4/4
attendance and at the end of the period, the certificate be
submitted to the Court;
(iv) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U T
Checking your session…