Patna High Court
Lakshman Thakur @ Laxman KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court allowed the petitioner's anticipatory bail, subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioner Lakshman Thakur sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case alleging attempted rape and assault under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He contended that the allegations were false, arising from a monetary dispute with the informant, and highlighted the 50‑day delay in filing the FIR and the lack of medical evidence of injury. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences. The High Court, after considering the delay, the petitioner's clean antecedent, and the claim of false implication, granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. The order also imposed specific conditions regarding sureties, personal appearance, and possible cancellation. The court clarified that its observations would not affect the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged attempted rape and assault under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Whether the 50‑day delay in filing the FIR and the absence of medical injury evidence justify bail
- Whether the petitioner's claim of false implication and clean criminal antecedent merit the grant of anticipatory bail
- Whether conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S. are appropriate for the bail order
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 126, 351(3), 482(2), 62, 64
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- rape
- assault
- delay in FIR
- criminal procedure
- bail conditions
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90248 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-558 Year-2024 Thana- KANTI District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Lakshman Thakur @ Laxman Kumar, Son of Resident of Village - Kanti
Kothiya, P.S.- Kanti, District - Muzaffarpur (Bihar).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Manju Devi Wife of Ramji Thakur Resident of Village - Kanti Kothiya, P.S.-
Kanti, District - Muzaffarpur (Bihar).
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advcoate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Asha Devi, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 20-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with
Kanti P.S. Case No. 558 of 2024 registered for the offences
under Sections 64, 62, 115(2), 126, 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant had
alleged that while she was in her house sleeping, the petitioner
entered her house and tried to commit rape, however, on protest,
the petitioner assaulted her and thereafter fled.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90248 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
2/4
petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case on account of a
dispute with regard to the distribution of money, which they had
received as compensation from the Government on the death of
one of the brothers of the husband of the informant. It has
further been submitted that the incident is admittedly stated to
have taken place on 01.09.2024, while the FIR was registered
on 20.10.2024 after almost 50 days of the occurrence. It has
next been submitted that from perusal of the case diary, it would
be evident that no such injuries have been found and in fact only
swelling and pain are stated to have been found by the Doctor. It
has also been submitted that in order to settle personal score and
dispute with regard to the said money, the present false and
concocted case has been levelled against the petitioner, who
happens to be the own brother-in-law (devar) of the informant.
It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner has clean
antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer
for anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, let the
petitioner above named be released on anticipatory bail, in the
event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90248 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
3/4
within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.10,000/-(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 in connection with
Kanti P.S. Case No. 558 of 2024, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S.
as well as subject to the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his close
relative.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present in
Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates, or in
violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the
petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the Court
concerned.
(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in similar nature
of offence in future, the prosecution shall be at liberty
to move for cancellation of his bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner and in case at 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.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90248 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
4/4
allowed.
8. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made in
this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
U T
Checking your session…