Patna High Court
HarshvardhanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The Court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail, granting it subject to specified conditions.
Summary
Harshvardhan, a fourth‑semester engineering student, was implicated in a protest that turned violent after the death of a hostel girl, leading to charges under multiple sections of the B.N.S. and the Damage to Public Property Act. He applied for anticipatory bail, arguing that his name was falsely implicated, there was no specific overt act against him, and he had a clean antecedent. The State opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the offences. The Court examined the submissions, noted the lack of concrete evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged arson, and considered the provisions of Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) B.N.S. It granted anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, and conditions of personal appearance and cooperation. The order emphasized that the bail conditions are not to delay verification of antecedents and that the observations are not binding during trial.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC to a petitioner alleged to be involved in rioting and arson?
- Whether the material on record sufficiently justifies denial of anticipatory bail in view of the charges under the B.N.S. and Damage to Public Property Act.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 B.N.S.
- rioting
- arson
- student protest
- false implication
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90578 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-545 Year-2025 Thana- CHANDI District- Nalanda
======================================================
Harshvardhan S/O Vinay Kumar R/O Mohalla- Patel Nagar, P.S- Hilsa,
district- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mukesh Kant, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Narendra Kumar Singh, 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. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Chandi P.S. Case No. 545 of 2025 dated 25.09.2025
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 190,
191(1), 189(3), 195(2), 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 132, 324(2) and
326(G) of the B.N.S. and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Damage
to Public Property Act.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along
with 400 to 500 students had created ruckus after the death of
one girl who was living in hostel and had died after falling from
the terrace of the hostel. It is further alleged that the petitioner
and others were identified through the whatsapp messages and
30 students were named along with 100 of unnamed students.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90578 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
2/4
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a student of Chandi Engineering College and
presently in the fourth semester. It has been submitted that the
name of the petitioner has falsely been implicated merely on
suspicion and no specific overt act has been alleged against him.
It has further been submitted that on account of such death of
the girl, the father of the deceased had lodged an F.I.R. against
the Principal and others which has been brought on record by
way of Annexure- P/3 and since the student in general were
protesting against the death of the said girl, some unscrupulous
persons had destroyed the vehicles and property of the college
and it was at the behest of the college that the petitioner’s name
was given to the police however, there is nothing on record to
suggest that the petitioner has participated in such arson.
Learned counsel has further been submitted that by Annexure-
P/4, ten students of the college were recommended for
disciplinary action and the name of the petitioner is not there. It
has lastly been submitted that the petitioner has clean
antecedent.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90578 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
3/4
parties and taking into account the facts and circumstances of
the case, the petitioner, above named, is directed to be released
on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the
Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on
furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees 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 Chandi P.S. Case No. 545 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 BNSS as well as subject to the following
conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the
petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present
before the concerned Court on each and every date of the trial
and shall cooperate in the investigation.
(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) The trial court shall verify the criminal antecedent
of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is found that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90578 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
4/4
petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedents, the trial court
shall take necessary steps for cancellation of bail bond of the
petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bond in terms of the
above mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in
the name of verification.
7. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Gautam/-
U T
Checking your session…