Patna High Court
Suga ThakurversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to conditions, despite the grievous nature of the alleged injuries.
Summary
The petitioners, five members of the Thakur family, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case (PS No. 162 of 2025) filed under multiple sections of the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 concerning an assault over a water dispute. The FIR alleged that Krishnandan Thakur and Mantosh Kumar inflicted grievous injuries, while the petitioners were implicated only by association and have no prior criminal record. The State argued that the injuries were grievous, justifying denial of bail. The court noted that the direct allegations were against the two named assailants and, considering the petitioners' clean antecedents, was inclined to grant anticipatory bail. It ordered bail on the condition of a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties and imposed several compliance conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. The order allows the petitioners to be released if arrested or to surrender within four weeks, subject to the stipulated conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to family members not directly accused despite the presence of grievous injuries to victims.
- Whether the absence of prior criminal antecedent justifies the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Application of Section 438(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code in the present circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 190, 191(1), 191(3), 351(2), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita
- grievous injury
- criminal antecedent
- family members
- assault
- water dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90615 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-162 Year-2025 Thana- PHENHARA District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Suga Thakur Son of Late Baldeo Thakur Resident of Village -Chakarpetha
P.S. -Phenhara Dist -East Champaran
2. Ramchandar Thakur son of Late Baldeo Thakur Resident of Village
-Chakarpetha P.S. -Phenhara Dist -East Champaran
3. Shambhu Thakur son of Late Baldeo Thakur Resident of Village
-Chakarpetha P.S. -Phenhara Dist -East Champaran
4. Lakhindar Thakur son of Ramprit Thakur Resident of Village -Chakarpetha
P.S. -Phenhara Dist -East Champaran
5. sikindar Thakur @ Sikki Thakur Son of Ramprit Thakur Resident of Village
-Chakarpetha P.S. -Phenhara Dist -East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dhannjay Kumar II, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Umesh Lal Verma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 Heard Mr. Dhannjay Kumar-II, learned counsel for
the petitioners and the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in
connection with Phenhara P.S. Case No. 162 of 2025 instituted
under Sections 191(1), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 109, 352,
351(2) of Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 lodged on 22.07.2025
by the informant, Rahul Kumar.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90615 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/4
that on the issue of the movement of water on the land, all the
accused persons armed variously, resorted to assault and the
specific allegation is that Krishnandan Thakur gave sword blow
on the head and later, Mantosh Kumar attacked Balindra Kumar
causing injury to him as also the informant. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that
admittedly, the allegation mainly is against the Krishnandan
Thakur and Mantosh Kumar, these petitioners, being the family
members, got implicated. None have criminal antecedent.
5. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that the
injuries have been found to be grievous in nature.
6. Considering the submissions of the parties as also
that though omnibus allegation is against them, direct allegation
is against Krishnandan Thakur and Mantosh Kumar and the
injuries given by them have been found to be grievous in nature,
these petitioners do not have criminal antecedent, in that
background, this Court is inclined to extend them the privilege
of anticipatory bail.
7. Let the petitioners be released on bail, in the event
of their arrest or surrender before the subordinate court within a
period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90615 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
3/4
of the like amount each in connection with Phenhara P.S. Case
No. 162 of 2025 to the satisfaction of learned CJM, Motihari
East, Champaran subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as also the other conditions.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioners who shall provide official
document (Aadhar Card/Voter I.D./Driving License/Pan Card
etc.) to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioners 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 their
bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioners shall appear before the concerned
police station every fortnight for next six months to mark their
attendance and at the end of the period a certificate be submitted
before the Trial Court failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioners 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;
(v) the petitioners shall desist from committing any
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90615 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
4/4
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U T
Checking your session…