Patna High Court
Rahul KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that, given the simple injury, the petitioner’s age and clean antecedents, and the existence of a counter‑case, pre‑arrest bail should be granted subject to conditions.
Summary
Petitioner Rahul Kumar sought pre‑arrest bail after an FIR was lodged for alleged assault on the informant’s father during a land dispute, citing multiple offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner argued that the FIR was filed with an unreasonable delay and that the injury sustained was simple. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the alleged assault. The Court noted the simple nature of the injury, the petitioner’s tender age, his clean antecedents, and the existence of a counter‑case, and consequently ordered bail subject to monetary and surety conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The bail order required surrender within four weeks and the presence of a close family member as a bailor.
Issues considered
- Whether pre‑arrest bail should be granted in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 329(3), 109(1), 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the delay in recording the informant’s statement and filing the FIR warrants the grant of bail.
- Whether the simple nature of the injury and the petitioner’s age and antecedents justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 329(3), 3(5), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- land dispute
- assault
- delay in FIR
- simple injury
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91229 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-508 Year-2025 Thana- CHAKIA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Rahul Kumar S/O Mithilesh Sahani Resident of village-Bara Baishaha, P.S-
Chakiya, District- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 Heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Chakiya P.S. Case No. 508 of 2025, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 329(3),
109(1), 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
3. On the fateful day while the accused person
forcibly sowing the maize in the field of the informant and when
the same was protested, it is alleged that all the FIR named
accused persons including the petitioner variously armed came
there and started abusing and assaulting. The allegation against
the petitioner is of causing assault upon the head of the father of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91229 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/3
the informant by means of iron rod.
4. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner taking this Court through the FIR contended that
besides the fact the alleged occurrence took place in the evening
of 03.09.2025, for the first time, the fard beyan of the informant
was recorded on 08.9.2025 and later on, the FIR has been
registered on 19.09.2025; there is no explanation for delay.
Moreover, the impugned order discussing the injuries allegedly
sustained to the informant’s father, the same is said to be simple
in nature. Admittedly the genesis of the occurrence is nothing,
but a land dispute which led to a free fight resulting into
institution of case and counter case being Chakiya P.S. Case No.
512 of 2025 instituted against the informant and others. The
petitioner bears fair antecedent and he undertakes that he will
fully cooperate in the proceeding of the Court.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
vehemently opposed the pre-arrest bail application and
submitted that the informant’s father is fortunate enough that he
sustained only simple injury, however the petitioner has
specifically assaulted over his head which may have proved
grievous or fatal.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91229 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
3/3
learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of
the genesis of the occurrence, coupled with the factum of case
and counter case, besides the simple nature of injury as well as
the tender age of the petitioner who bears fair antecedent, let the
petitioner above named be released on bail, in the event of his
arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order, upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran at
Motihari or Successor Court in connection with Chakiya P.S.
Case No. 508 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down in
Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
with the further condition that one of the bailors shall be the
own/close family members of the petitioner.
(Harish Kumar, J)
supratim/-
U T
Checking your session…