Patna High Court
Budhraj SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court allowed withdrawal of the anticipatory bail application for petitioners 1 and 2, granted anticipatory bail to petitioners 3 and 4, and rejected anticipatory bail for petitioner 5.
Summary
The petitioners, comprising members of the Singh family, filed an anticipatory bail application in a case registered under several sections of the Bihar Negotiable (B.N.S.) Act. Petitioners 1 and 2 (Budhraj Singh and Guddu Kumar) were arrested during the pendency of the application and sought to withdraw it, which the court permitted. Petitioners 3 (Rita Devi) and 4 (Prince Kumar) pleaded for anticipatory bail, asserting clean antecedents and arguing that custody would jeopardize their futures; the State opposed, citing grievous injuries to the informant’s family. The court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners 3 and 4 subject to bail bonds and conditions under Section 482(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, but denied bail to petitioner 5 (Pappu Kumar) due to a prior criminal record under the Arms Act. The application was thus allowed in part, with withdrawal accepted for petitioners 1 and 2, bail granted to 3 and 4, and bail rejected for 5.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail may be withdrawn for petitioners who have been arrested.
- Whether petitioners 3 and 4 are entitled to anticipatory bail despite allegations of assault and grievous injury to the informant’s family.
- Whether petitioner 5 should be denied anticipatory bail on account of a prior criminal antecedent under the Arms Act.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- withdrawal of bail application
- grievous injury
- criminal antecedent
- Section 482
- bail conditions
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9785 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-499 Year-2025 Thana- DINARA District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. Budhraj Singh Son of Late Ram Awatar Singh R/o Village - Bensagar, P.S. -
Dinara, District - Rohtas.
2. Guddu Kumar Son of Budhraj Singh R/o Village - Bensagar, P.S. - Dinara,
District - Rohtas.
3. Rita Devi Wife of Budhraj Singh R/o Village - Bensagar, P.S. - Dinara,
District - Rohtas.
4. Prince Kumar Son of Budhraj Singh R/o Village - Bensagar, P.S. - Dinara,
District - Rohtas.
5. Pappu Kumar Son of Budhraj Singh R/o Village - Bensagar, P.S. - Dinara,
District - Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nagendra Upadhyay
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ajay Kumar Jha
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 30-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks
permission to withdraw the present anticipatory bail application
with respect to petitioner nos.1 and 2, namely, Budhraj Singh
and Guddu Kumar respectively as they were arrested during
pendency of the instant anticipatory bail application.
3. Permission is accorded.
4. Accordingly, instant petition is dismissed as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9785 of 2026(2) dt.30-03-2026
2/4
withdrawn with respect to petitioner nos.1 and 2, namely,
Budhraj Singh and Guddu Kumar.
5. The petitioner nos.3, 4 and 5 seek bail in
anticipation of their arrest in a case registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 351(2), 352,
117(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioner nos.3 and 4 are persons with clean antecedent and
petitioner no.5 has antecedent of one case and petitioner no.3 is
a woman and the informant alleges that on 17.11.2025 at about
3.00 P.M., he along with his son (Santosh) were irrigating the
potato field when his agnates (petitioners) came variously armed
and started abusing. On objection, the accused persons assaulted
his son by an iron rod, lathi and danda causing injury on
forehead and his son also suffered internal injury. Further, when
the informant’s family members came to rescue them, the
accused also assaulted them with lathi, danda and iron rod
causing injury on forehead of his nephew Hari Shankar and he
also suffered fracture of left hand. Further, Upendra was also
assaulted, who suffered injury on his head and left hand while
wife of the informant sustained fracture injury of right hand.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9785 of 2026(2) dt.30-03-2026
3/4
petitioner no. 3 is a woman and petitioner no.4 is a young boy
aged about 19 years and if they are sent to judicial custody their
entire career would get jeopardized and chances are bright that
they may come in contact with hardened criminals. It is also
reiterated and submitted that petitioner nos.3 and 4 are persons
with clean antecedent. It is next submitted that as far as
petitioner no.5 is concerned, the allegation against him is also
general and omnibus in nature.
8. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application and submits that two persons have suffered grievous
injury including a woman from the side of the informant and
petitioner no.5 is a person having criminal antecedent under the
Arms Act. It is next submitted that no doubt, allegation of
assault is not specific, but then, two persons from the side of the
informant have suffered grievous injury, on which the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that
though in the FIR, it is alleged that the accused persons
assaulted the side of the informant by lathi, danda and iron rod,
but then, Upendra suffered grievous injury on account of assault
by sharp edged weapon when the same is not alleged in the FIR,
on which learned A.P.P. submits that FIR is not an encyclopedia.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9785 of 2026(2) dt.30-03-2026
4/4
the petitioner nos.3 and 4, above-named, in the event of their
arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of six weeks, are directed to be released on anticipatory
bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) each 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 Dinara P.
S. Case No.499 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down
under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
10. The application stands allowed.
11. So far as petitioner no.5 is concerned, the
Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail
to the petitioner no.5.
12. The prayer of the petitioner no.5 for
anticipatory bail stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…