Patna High Court
Rahul KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioners subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Summary
The petitioners, Rahul Kumar and Raushan Kumar, sought bail in connection with a criminal case (Kalyanpur PS Case No. 288 of 2025) arising from an FIR dated 22.08.2025 alleging offences under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners obstructed the installation of a smart meter, verbally abused and assaulted Govind Kumar, causing a head injury. The petitioners contended they have a clean antecedent, were falsely implicated, and that the FIR contains only a generic allegation without specific reference to an assault by them. The court considered the lack of specific allegations against the petitioners, their clean record, and the simple nature of the injury, and decided to grant bail subject to conditions under Section 438 of the CrPC and Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The bail order required a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, cooperation with the trial, and provisions for cancellation upon tampering with evidence or concealment of antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioners in view of the allegations under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and the circumstances of the case
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 132, 3(5), 351(2), 352
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- assault
- smart meter installation
- false implication
- clean antecedent
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita
- Section 438
- Section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91246 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-288 Year-2025 Thana- KALYANPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
1. Rahul Kumar S/o Sagar Paswan R/o village - Madhurapur Tara, Police
Station - Kalyanpur, District - Samastipur
2. Raushan Kumar S/o Lakshman Paswan R/o village - Madhurapur Tara,
Police Station - Kalyanpur, District - Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mahendra Pratap, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Murli Dhar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-02-2026 Heard Mr. Mahendra Pratap, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Murli Dhar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 288 of 2025, F.I.R. dated
22.08.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 109, 132, 352, 351(2), 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita,
2023.
3. According to prosecution case, when one Govind
Kumart along with other members had gone to Mathurapur Tara
village for installing smart meter, the petitioners along with other
co-accused persons obstructed the installation of smart meter and
verbally abused him and assaulted him causing injury on his head.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91246 of 2025(2) dt.17-02-2026
2/3
petitioners have clean antecedent and they have falsely been
implicated in the present case. He further submits that the
allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the
petitioners have not committed any offences as alleged in the
F.I.R. Although the petitioners are named in the FIR but from bare
perusal of the FIR it appears that there is no specific allegation of
assault or overt act against them rather there is general and
omnibus allegation against all the accused persons including the
petitioners and injury inflicted upon the said Govind Kumar is
simple in nature.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and
the fact that the petitioners have clean antecedent and there is no
specific allegation of assault or overt act against them and injury
inflicted upon the injured person is simple in nature, let the
petitioners, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before
the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of
receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Samastipur in connection with Kalyanpur P.S. Case
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91246 of 2025(2) dt.17-02-2026
3/3
No. 288 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2)
of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following
conditions:-
i. Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioners tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any
stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal
antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail
bond of the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in
terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for
purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…