Patna High Court
Raju TuduversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court held that bail must be granted as the petitioners are not named in the FIR, possess a clean antecedent, and there is no likelihood of tampering with evidence.
Summary
The petitioners, Raju Tudu and Birendra Murmu, were implicated in a police case (No. 728 of 2025) alleging participation in a violent mob that attacked police during a liquor raid, with charges under multiple sections of the B.N.S. The prosecution’s case is based on secret information and the testimony of a local chowkidar, who is alleged to be hostile to the petitioners. The petitioners contend they are not named in the FIR, have no criminal record, and were arrested on 12 October 2025, seeking bail. The State opposed bail, citing injuries to three informant‑side persons, two simple and one grievous. The Court, after considering the lack of naming in the FIR, the petitioners’ clean antecedent, and the material on record, granted bail subject to a bond of Rs 10,000 each and specific conditions regarding sureties, trial cooperation, and non‑tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioners accused under sections 191(2), 193(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 132, 121(1), 121(2), 352 and 352(2) of the B.N.S.
- Whether the fact that the petitioners are not named in the FIR and have a clean antecedent warrants bail.
- Whether the injuries sustained by informant‑side persons preclude the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 109, 115, 121, 126, 132, 190, 191, 193, 352
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- B.N.S. offences
- clean antecedent
- FIR
- police assault
- injury to informant
- surety bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90419 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-728 Year-2025 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka
======================================================
1. Raju Tudu Son of Bharat Tudu Resident of Mahadev Asthan, P.S. -
Aamarpur, Dist. - Banka.
2. Birendra Murmu Son of Muchru Murmu Resident of Mahadev Asthan, P.S. -
Aamarpur, Dist. - Banka.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhananjay Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anand Kishore Choudhary, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 13-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in connection with
Amarpur P.S. Case No. 728 of 2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 191(2), 193(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2),
109(1), 132, 121(1), 121(2), 352 and 352(2) of B.N.S.
3. As per prosecution-case, on secret information
regarding illegal manufacturing and transportation of liquor,
informant and other proceeded towards the place of occurrence.
Two persons on a motorcycle were intercepted for checking, but
they refused and started abusing and pushing the police party.
Thereafter, 25 to 30 persons armed with sticks, Iron rods and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90419 of 2025(2) dt.13-01-2026
2/3
lethal weapons, including 11 named and 15 unknown persons,
came and attacked the police team.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence as
alleged in the F.I.R. Petitioners are not even named in the F.I.R.
Their names have been dragged in this case on the basis of
statement of local Chowkidar who is on inimical terms with
petitioner No.1 and father-in-law of petitioner No.2. It is orally
submitted that charge-sheet has already been submitted and
there is no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution
evidence. Apart from that, petitioners are having no criminal
antecedent and petitioners are in custody since 12.10.2025.
Hence, they deserve bail.
5. Learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the prayer of
bail and submitted that there are three injured persons from the
informant side. Two injuries are simple and one is grievous in
nature. Hence, petitioners do not deserve bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, period of custody, petitioners are not even named in the
F.I.R., clean antecedent of the petitioners, argument advanced
on behalf of both sides and also taking into consideration the
material available on record, let the petitioners above named be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90419 of 2025(2) dt.13-01-2026
3/3
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees
Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka in
connection with Amarpur P.S. Case No. 728 of 2025, subject to
following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors shall be either father or
mother or sister or brother or wife or the person who has sworn
the affidavit in bail application.
(ii) Petitioners will co-operate in trial and will
remain present on all dates and absence for two consecutive
dates without appropriate permission, would be a ground for
cancellation of bail by the learned Trial court itself.
(iii) If the petitioners tamper with the evidence or
the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
K.C.Jha/-
U T
Checking your session…