Patna High Court
Nesar AhmadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail to Manoj Thakur but granted it to Nesar Ahmad and Ejaullah with conditions.
Summary
The petitioners Nesar Ahmad, Manoj Thakur and Ejaullah were named in FIR No. 321 of 2025 for alleged assault on the informant's son, invoking several IPC sections. They applied for anticipatory bail, arguing that the FIR was exaggerated and that there were counter‑versions of the incident. The informant contended that the injury inflicted by Manoj Thakur was grievous and highlighted his prior criminal record. The High Court examined the seriousness of the offences, the antecedents of Manoj Thakur, and the role of Nesar Ahmad as an order‑giver and Ejaullah as an alleged participant. The Court rejected Manoj Thakur's anticipatory bail but granted it to Nesar Ahmad and Ejaullah subject to strict conditions, including bond, sureties, regular police appearances and non‑interference with witnesses.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused under the listed IPC sections
- Whether the prior criminal antecedents of Manoj Thakur justify denial of anticipatory bail
- Whether the FIR is exaggerated and warrants bail for the other accused
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 115(1), 118(2), 127(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 76
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Indian Penal Code
- grievous injury
- criminal antecedents
- bail conditions
- FIR
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9872 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-321 Year-2025 Thana- KALYANPUR District- East Champaran
======================================================
1. Nesar Ahmad S/O Sheikh Abdullah Resident of Village- Meghua Bakarpur,
P.S- Kalyanpur, District- East Champaran.
2. Manoj Thakur S/O Ramagya Thakur R/O Village- Siswa Sob, P.S-
Kalyanpur, Distt.- East Champaran.
3. Ejaullah S/O Safiullah R/O Village- Siswa Sob, P.S- Kalyanpur, Distt.- East
Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Karandeep Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Rananjay Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Shahid Ahmad, Advocate
Mrs. Chhateshwari Kumari, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 23-02-2026 Heard Mr. Karandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Rananjay Kumar representing the informant
beside Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, learned APP.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 321 of 2025 for the
offence under sections 127(2), 115(1), 118(2), 109, 76, 303(2),
351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the BNS lodged on 20.08.2025 by the
informant, Khaudeja Khatoon.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that while she was busy in her field, the accused persons came
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9872 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026
2/4
and on the order of petitioner no. 1. Nesar Ahmad, allegation is
that Manoj Thakur (petitioner no. 2) gave knife blow on the left
side of the chest of informant’s son, Sheikh Sarfaraz while the
petitioner no. 3, Ejaullah alongiwith other accused persons also
assaulted him. The villagers took the injured to Primary Health
Center, Kalyanpur, then to referral hospital Chakia and finally to
SKMCH, Muzaffarpur . This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that
exaggerated FIR is there, there is counter-version also, there is
omnibus allegation against petitioner no. 3 and he has no
criminal antecedent while petitioner no. 1 is an order giver.
5. Learned counsel representing the informant submits
that a perusal of the learned Sessions Judge order would show
that one of the injury of Sheikh Sarfaraz inflicted by Manoj
Thakur, who has four criminal antecedents, has been found to be
grievous in nature.
6. Considering the submissions of the parties as also
the allegation that has come against Manoj Thakur (petitioner
no. 2), his anticipatory bail application stands rejected.
7. So far as petitioner no. 1, Nesar Ahmad and
petitioner no. 3, Ejaullah are concerned, taking into account that
one is an order giver while the omnibus allegation is there
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9872 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026
3/4
against the petitioner no. 3, in that background, this Court is
inclined to extend them privilege of anticipatory bail.
8. Let the petitioner no. 1, Nesar Ahmad and
petitioner no. 3, Ejaullah be released on bail in the event of
arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the
receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/-
(Ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate -12,
East Champaran at Motihari in connection with Kalyanpur P.S.
Case No. 321 of 2025 subject to the following conditions:
(i) one of the bailor should be the family
member/relative of the petitioner no. 1, Nesar Ahmad and
petitioner no. 3, Ejaullah who shall provide official document
(Aadhaar Card/Voter ID Card/Pan Card/Driving License) to
show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner no. 1, Nesar Ahmad and petitioner
no. 3, Ejaullah shall be appearing before the Police Station as
and when required for cooperating in the investigation;
(iii) the petitioner no. 1, Nesar Ahmad and petitioner
no. 3, Ejaullah shall appear on each and every date before the
Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates
without plausible reason will entail cancellation of their bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9872 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026
4/4
bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iv) the petitioner no. 1, Nesar Ahmad and petitioner
no. 3, Ejaullah shall appear before the concerned police station
every month for six months to mark their attendance and after
the end of the period, the certificate shall be submitted before
the Trial Court failing which steps shall be taken for the
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(v) the petitioner no. 1, Nesar Ahmad and petitioner
no. 3, Ejaullah shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat
the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the
State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail
bonds;
(vi) the petitioner no. 1, Nesar Ahmad and petitioner
no. 3, Ejaullah shall desist from committing any criminal
offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take
steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Adnan/-
U T
Checking your session…