Patna High Court
Kishun Rai @ Kishan RaiversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to conditions, under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Summary
Kishun Rai sought anticipatory bail after being named in FIR No. 264/2025 for alleged assault on an informant using an iron rod, resulting in a simple head injury. The petitioner claimed innocence, citing a three‑day delay in filing the FIR, contradictory statements by the informant, and a counter‑case filed by his wife. The State opposed bail, arguing that the petitioner was specifically accused of assault. The court noted the injury was minor, the FIR delay unexplained, and the prosecution story inconsistent, and therefore granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2). The application was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. despite the allegations of assault.
- Whether the alleged offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 110, 352, 351(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 constitute a ground to deny anticipatory bail.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and contradictory statements affect the merit of the anticipatory bail application.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 110, 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 351(3), 352
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- assault
- FIR delay
- Section 482
- simple injury
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9550 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-264 Year-2025 Thana- PIPRAHI District- Sheohar
======================================================
Kishun Rai @ Kishan Rai Son of Nandlal Rai R/o Village - Narayanpur, P.S.-
Piprahi, District - Sheohar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Renu Kumari, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 26-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Piprahi P.S. Case No. 264 of 2025 registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2),
110, 352, 351(2), 351(3) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. As per prosecution case, petitioner and others
were abusing Keshav Kumar (informant’s brother) and when
the informant reached, they started abusing him also. When
the same was protested by the informant, all accused persons
started assaulting and they made an attempt to break the hand
of informant’s brother. It is alleged that petitioner assaulted
the informant by means of an iron rod but when the informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9550 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
2/4
tried to avert the blow, he sustained head injury.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged
in the F.I.R. and he has falsely been implicated in this case.
He further submits that there is case and counter case between
the parties on the same date of occurrence. It is submitted that
though the alleged occurrence took place on 10.12.2025, the
F.I.R. has been lodged on 13.12.2025 after a delay of three
days, which has not been plausibly explained and the same
casts doubt upon the authenticity of the prosecution case. It is
further submitted that there are two sets of story with regard
to the same occurrence, one lodged by the wife of the
petitioner vide Piprahi P.S. Case No.279 of 2025 and the other
by the informant vide Piprahi P.S. Case No. 264 of 2025 and
the manner in which the present F.I.R. has been instituted
suppresses the occurrence of the petitioner’s side as narrated
by the wife of the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the
prosecution story is self-contradictory inasmuch as at one
place the informant claims to have escaped from the assault
and at another place he alleges that he sustained injuries. It is
further submitted that the petitioner and the informant are co-
villagers and the alleged occurrence took place on account of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9550 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
3/4
dispute regarding non-payment of loan which was given by
the informant on earlier occasion. It is submitted that from
perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the injury
sustained by the injured is simple in nature. Petitioner bears
one criminal antecedent in which he is already on bail. In the
light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no
offence as alleged in the FIR is made out against the
petitioner.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the
prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner by submitting that
the petitioner is F.I.R. named accused and specific allegation
of assault has been made against him.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, injury sustained by the informant is simple in nature,
argument advanced on behalf of both sides and also taking
into consideration the material available on record, the
petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender
before the learned court below within a period of six weeks
from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned J.M.F.C.,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9550 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
4/4
Sheohar in connection with Piprahi P.S. Case No. 264 of
2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
482(2) of B.N.S.S.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
Nilmani/-
U T
Checking your session…