Patna High Court

Dharam Roy @ Dharam KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 26 March 2026
Disposal: BAIL GRANTED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

The Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Summary

The petitioner, Dharam Roy, feared arrest in a case registered under several sections of the Bihar Non‑Specific (BNS) Act, 2023, alleging that he assaulted an informant with a pistol during a land dispute involving his father‑in‑law. He contended that he has a clean record and that the allegations are fabricated to coerce his father‑in‑law. The State opposed the anticipatory bail, arguing the seriousness of the offences. The Court examined the FIR, noted the lack of clear evidence of a serious injury and the possibility of false implication, and applied its inherent powers under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. It ordered that the petitioner be released on anticipatory bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions. The anticipatory bail application was therefore allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail despite the FIR alleging offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 74, 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
Whether the FIR discloses a cognizable offence warranting denial of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

BNS, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 74
BNSS — s. 482(2)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
land dispute
assault with pistol
false implication
Section 482
criminal procedure
bail conditions

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9469 of 2026
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-510 Year-2025 Thana- BABUBARHI District- Madhubani
                 ======================================================
                 Dharam Roy @ Dharam Kumar S/o- Hari Shankar Roy Village- Sakhua PS-
                 Jhanjharpur Naraihiya District- Madhubani

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   26-03-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case

                   registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2),

                   115(2), 118(1), 109, 74, 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent. It is next submitted

                   that there is a land dispute in between the informant and father-

                   in-law of the petitioner, on account of which the petitioner came

                   to be implicated in the instant case with an allegation that he

                   assaulted the informant by butt of pistol causing injury on head.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would

                   manifest that the case has not been instituted under the Arms
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9469 of 2026(2) dt.26-03-2026
                                                        2/2




                      Act. It is also submitted that in order to coerce his father-in-law

                      in submission, the petitioner has been implicated in the instant

                      case by the informant. It is next submitted that even presuming

                      what has been alleged is true without admitting then the injury

                      suffered by the injured has been opined to be simple in nature.

                                   5. Learned       A.P.P.     for    the   State   opposes   the

                      anticipatory bail application of the petitioner.

                                   6. Considering the submissions made by the learned

                      counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the

                      event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks

                      from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail

                      bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties

                      of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial

                      court where the case is pending/successor court in connection

                      with Babubarhi P.S. Case No. 510 of 2025 subject to the

                      conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of BNSS.

                                   7. Accordingly,         the    instant    anticipatory     bail

                      application stands allowed.



                                                              (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…