Patna High Court
Manoj PandeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The Court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail, subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of Pandey family members, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in connection with Buxar (Muffasil) Police Station Case No.366 of 2025, which alleged offences under several sections of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, armed with iron rods, lathis and other weapons, attacked the son of an informant, causing simple injuries to most victims and a grievous injury to Omkar Nath Pandey. The petitioners contended that the dispute arose from a neighbourly quarrel over liquor sales, that the informant was the aggressor, that the injuries were not as severe as claimed, and that they have clean antecedents. The State opposed the anticipatory bail, arguing the seriousness of the alleged offences. After considering the facts and submissions, the Court 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 stipulated bail bond requirements, surety conditions, and compliance directives for the trial period.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC despite the serious nature of the alleged offences.
- Whether the allegations of assault and grievous injury justify denial of bail.
- Whether the petitioners' clean antecedents and the disputed motive affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 B.N.S.S.
- Indian Penal Code
- assault
- grievous injury
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90324 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-366 Year-2025 Thana- BUXAR MUFFSIL District- Buxar
======================================================
1. Manoj Pandey, Son of Baban Pandey Resident of village - Chausa, Police
Station - Buxar (Muffasil), District - Buxar.
2. Brajesh Pandey, Son of Baban Pandey Resident of village - Chausa, Police
Station - Buxar (Muffasil), District - Buxar.
3. Sujeet Pandey, Son of Ramesh Pandey Resident of village - Chausa, Police
Station - Buxar (Muffasil), District - Buxar.
4. Baban Pandey, Son of Late Ramnagina Pandey Resident of village - Chausa,
Police Station - Buxar (Muffasil), District - Buxar.
5. Umesh Pandey, Son of Shivnandan Pandey Resident of village - Chausa,
Police Station - Buxar (Muffasil), District - Buxar.
6. Ramesh Pandey, Son of Shivnandan Pandey Resident of village - Chausa,
Police Station - Buxar (Muffasil), District - Buxar.
7. Nikhil Pandey @ Divyanshu Pandey, Son of Rajesh Pandey Resident of
village - Chausa, Police Station - Buxar (Muffasil), District - Buxar.
8. Shiv Nandan Pandey, Son of Late Ramnagina Pandey Resident of village -
Chausa, Police Station - Buxar (Muffasil), District - Buxar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manish Rai Sharma, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Narsingh Tanti, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 20-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Buxar (Muffasil) P.S. Case No.366 of 2025 registered for
the offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109, 303(2),
74, 351(2), 351(3), 352, 3(5) of the I.P.C.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90324 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
2/4
3. As per the prosecution case, the eleven named
accused persons, variously armed with iron rod, gadasi,
baisakhi, lathi etc. attacked the son of the informant. It is alleged
that Baban Pandey and Shivnandan Pandey were instigating
others and out of the named accused persons, Brajesh Pandey
and Manoj Pandey assaulted Deepak Pandey by means of iron
rod in his forehead, while Ramesh Pandey, Umesh Pandey,
Nikhil Pandey, Brajesh Pandey, Manoj Pandey and others
assaulted Omkar Nath Pandey by means of an iron rod and
baisakhi on the head and other parts of the body, while Sujit
Pandey by lathi and Shivnandan Pandey by means of fists.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits
that the petitioners and the informant are next door neighbours
and there was an altercation on account of some dispute. It has
further been submitted that for the same occurrence there was a
case and countercase and even the petitioners’ side had also
received injury. It has next been submitted that from perusal of
the injury report, it would be evident that all the injured persons
had sustained simple injuries barring one Omkar Nath Pandey,
who had received one grievous injury, however, the allegation
upon him is of assault by all the named accused persons. It has
next been submitted that the injury is not corroborated by what
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90324 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
3/4
has been stated in the FIR. It has also been submitted that in fact
no motive has been alleged by the informant, however, from the
perusal of the FIR lodged on behalf of the petitioners, it would
be evident that the informant and others are involved in the sale
of liquor to which the petitioners have objected, on account of
which, it was the informant who was the aggressor and not the
petitioners. It has lastly been submitted that petitioners have
clean antecedents.
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
petitioners above named be released on anticipatory bail, in the
event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) each 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
Buxar (Muffasil) P.S. Case No.366 of 2025, 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:-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90324 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
4/4
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioners shall
be their close relative.
(ii) The petitioners 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 petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by
the Court concerned.
(iv) If the petitioners are found involved in
similar nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall
be at liberty to move for cancellation of their bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below shall verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any
stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed
their criminal antecedent, the court below shall take
step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners.
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
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…