Patna High Court
Nathuni BhagatversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail must be granted as the investigation failed to produce any evidence implicating the petitioners in the alleged crime.
Summary
The petitioners, members of the Bhagat family, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case concerning the disappearance and death of the informant's son, alleged to be linked to a land dispute. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 137(2), 140(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, but the petitioners argued that the investigation revealed no concrete evidence tying them to the alleged murder, noting that call detail records showed no contact and the post‑mortem indicated death by drowning. The State opposed the bail, contending that the informant’s testimony and the land dispute provided sufficient grounds to deny relief. The court examined the lack of substantive evidence and applied the provisions of Section 438 of the CrPC read with Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concluding that anticipatory bail was appropriate. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 and specific conditions, emphasizing that the order’s observations would not affect the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 CrPC and Section 482 B.N.S.S. when the investigation yields no substantive evidence linking the petitioners to the alleged offences.
- Whether the existence of a land dispute and the informant’s allegations constitute sufficient ground to deny anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 137(2), 140(1), 3(5)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- land dispute
- murder investigation
- lack of evidence
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91204 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-109 Year-2025 Thana- SIWAIPATTI District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1. Nathuni Bhagat Son of Late Paldhari Bhagat Resident of Village - Ghosaut,
P.S.- Siwaipatti, District - Muzaffarpur.
2. Shribhagat @ Sri Bhagat @ Shree Bhagat Son of Paldhari Bhagat Resident
of Village - Ghosaut, P.S.- Siwaipatti, District - Muzaffarpur.
3. Rajeev Kumar @ Rajiv Kumar Son of Nathuni Bhagat Resident of Village -
Ghosaut, P.S.- Siwaipatti, District - Muzaffarpur.
4. Rabin Bhagat @ Ravin Kumar @ Rabin Kumar Son of Nathuni Bhagat
Resident of Village - Ghosaut, P.S.- Siwaipatti, District - Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Adv.
For the Informant : Mr. Raju Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Ms. Pushpa Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 20-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Siwaipatti P.S. Case No. 109 of 2025 registered
for the offence(s) under Section(s) 137(2), 140(1) and 3(5) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.).
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has
alleged that his son had gone out in the evening on his bicycle
and did not return. It is alleged that she was having a land
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91204 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
2/4
dispute with petitioner No. 1/Nathuni Bhagat and she
apprehends that the named accused persons including the
petitioners had made her son disappear and even killed him.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
from the perusal of the F.I.R., it would be evident that a mere
suspicion has been raised against the petitioners and no specific
allegation of killing of the son of the informant has been made.
It has further been submitted that admittedly there is a land
dispute between the petitioners and the informant, such fact has
also come during the course of investigation. It has further been
pointed out that the police had tracked the CDR of the deceased
as also the accused persons and it was recorded in paragraph 99
of the case diary that the deceased had no conversation
whatsoever with the accused persons. It has also been
submitted that from the post-mortem report, it would be evident
that the cause of death was said to be asphyxia as a result of
drowning. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioners are
the family members and they all have been falsely implicated in
this case and they all carry clean antecedents.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State as also the learned
counsel for the opposite party No. 2 have vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91204 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
3/4
have submitted that the facts stated in the F.I.R. has been
supported even during the course of investigation by the
informant as well as her other family members. It has been
submitted that there was a land dispute between the parties and
the son of the informant died in mysterious circumstance and,
therefore, the petitioners should not be granted the privilage of
anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and taking into account the fact that there is no evidence
collected during the course of investigation to show that the
petitioners were involved, let the petitioners, above-named, be
released on anticipatory bail, in the event of their arrest or
surrender before the concerned Court/successor Court within a
period of four weeks from today, on their furnishing bail bond in
the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
concerned Court/successor Court where the case is pending in
connection with Siwaipatti P.S. Case No. 109 of 2025, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with corresponding Section
482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(B.N.S.S.) as well as subject to the following conditions :
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioners shall be their
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91204 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
4/4
close relative and the other shall be a local resident.
(ii) The petitioners 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 for two consecutive occasions
or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the
petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the concerned
Court.
(iv) The concerned Court shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioners and in case, at any stage, it is
found that he has concealed their criminal antecedent, the
Court concerned shall take necessary steps for cancellation
of their bail bond. 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)
Praveen-II/-
U T
Checking your session…