Patna High Court
Ranjit MahtoversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court held that, in view of the lack of specific allegations and the minor nature of the injuries, anticipatory bail must be granted to the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners, Ranjit Mahto and his son Kamal Kishor Kumar (alias Jalandhar Kumar), applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a land‑dispute related case (PS‑Halsi Case No.21 of 2025) where they were alleged to have assaulted an informant and his wife with weapons, causing injuries and theft of jewellery. The prosecution alleged offences under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioners contended that the allegations were vague, the injuries were minor, and there were no specific charges against them; one petitioner had a clean record while the other had three pending cases but was on bail. The court examined whether the general nature of the accusations and the petitioners’ antecedents warranted denial of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC and Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Finding the allegations non‑specific and the injuries simple, the court granted anticipatory bail with a bond of Rs 10,000 and several conditions, including appearance before the trial court and non‑interference with witnesses. The order directs release on bail if arrested within thirty days, subject to compliance with the stipulated conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 438 CrPC/Section 482 BNS when the allegations are general and the injuries are minor.
- Whether the petitioners’ prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether specific charges are required to deny anticipatory bail in a land‑dispute related assault case.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 329(4), 3(5), 351(2), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- land dispute
- assault
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 BNS
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90370 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2025 Thana- HALSI District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
1. Ranjit Mahto S/o- Late Soudi Mahto Village- Mohaddinagar PS-Halsi Dist-
Lakhisarai
2. Kamal Kishor Kumar @ Jalandhar Kumar S/o- Ranjit Mahto Village-
Mohaddinagar PS-Halsi Dist- Lakhisarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Parmanand Pd. Nr. Sahi, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Halsi P.S. Case No.21 of 2025, F.I.R dated
30.01.2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 303(2), 352, 329(4), 351(2) and
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, due to an ongoing
land dispute with Ranjit Mahto pending before the Janta Darbar,
all the accused persons attacked the informant and his wife on
29.01.2025 at about 8:00 a.m. while they were cleaning their
vehicle. The accused abused and threatened to kill them,
assaulted them with weapons including an iron rod, axe, khanti,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90370 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/4
and a pistol, causing injuries to both. On hearing the
commotion, villagers arrived and informed the police by
dialling 112. The police reached the spot and sent the injured
persons to Halsi Government Hospital for treatment. It is further
alleged that the accused also took away a gold chain and
earrings.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
for a existing land dispute, the petitioners are said to have been
roped in the present case and the co-accused namely, Jalandhar
Kumar has been shown to be son of the petitioner, namely,
Ranjit Mahto and there is no specific allegations levelled against
these petitioners rather the allegations are general and omnibus
in nature and from the injury report, it appears that the injuries
which is said to have been caused to the informant are simple in
nature and does not corroborate with the allegations which is
said to have been levelled against these petitioners. The
petitioner No.2 has clean antecedent and petitioner No.1 has
three criminal antecedent but he is on bail in all the said cases.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to
maintain peace and harmony with the informant and in case of
any further similar nature of allegations being levelled against
them and if the Police finds substance in the complaint made by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90370 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
3/4
the informant, they may be at liberty to seek cancellation of
anticipatory bail.
6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail application.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that there is no specific allegations levelled against these
petitioners rather the allegations are general and omnibus in
nature and from the injury report, it appears that the injuries,
which is said to have been caused to the informant, are simple in
nature and the petitioner No.2 has clean antecedent and
petitioner No.1, though has three criminal antecedent, he is on
bail in all the said cases. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to
grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
8. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of
their 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/- (Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, in connection
with Halsi P.S. Case No.21 of 2025, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90370 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
4/4
Sanhita and with other following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official
document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) 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/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) 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;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
sharun/-
U T
Checking your session…