Patna High Court
Prabhakar KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Prabhakar Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested in a case involving offences under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He argued that the FIR was based on a complaint case that had already been dismissed under Section 203 of the Cr.P.C., and that he had a clean antecedent. The informant alleged a violent robbery and assault, but the petitioner contended that the allegations were vague, implausible, and motivated by his earlier criminal complaint against the informant’s husband. The learned magistrate had issued a process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. without stating reasons, which the petitioner claimed should not preclude bail. The High Court, after considering the lack of specific charges against the petitioner and the questionable motive, granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when a process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued without reasons.
- Whether the general and omnibus nature of the allegations against the petitioner justifies denial of bail.
- Whether the prior dismissal of the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether alleged motive and false implication warrant the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 203, 438, 82
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 82 CrPC
- Section 203 CrPC
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- false implication
- general allegations
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9928 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2023 Thana- MADHWAPUR District- Madhubani
======================================================
Prabhakar Kumar S/o- Sukeshwar Lal Das Resident Of Village- Taraiya, Ps-
Saharghat, Dist- Madhubani
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Amit Srivastava, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Ram Nibash Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Mithlesh Kumar Khare
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 10-04-2026 Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. Amit Srivastava,
for the petitioner and learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State
and learned counsel for the informant.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered
for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 341, 323, 354,
379, 427, 504, 506 and 34 of the B.N.S. Act, 2023.
3. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner submits that the complaint case No.4 of 2023 was
instituted against the petitioner but then the same was dismissed
under Section 203 of Cr.P.C. By an order dated 17.10.2023
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ist-cum-
Special Judge, Madhubani, as such petitioner is a person with
clean antecedent. The learned senior counsel next submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9928 of 2026(3) dt.10-04-2026
2/5
informant alleges that she along with her son on 28.10.2022 at 2
P.M. were going on motorcycle to purchase jewellery, when
they were intercepted by accused persons and they asked to
hand over all the belongings, on protest, accused persons, Hare
Ram on point of pistol threatened that her son would be killed,
thereafter, Priyanshu and Runa snatched Rs.17,000/- while
Lalita and Prabhakar forged her to sign on two blank papers,
thereafter, Lalita and Runa made her unconscious by putting a
uncle chips around her bed and Prabhakar assaulted by hammer
causing injury on head and Hare Ram assaulted by rod causing
injury on back and chest. It is next alleged that accused persons
assaulted her son and followed them to their house and again
assaulted and Prabhat acted inappropriately with her daughter in
law and accused person took away Rs.15,000/- and jewelry
worth Rs. 1,50,000/-.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in
the instant case by the informant, it is next submitted that the
instant F.I.R. is based on a compliant case, it is further submitted
that allegations as alleged in the F.I.R. does not inspire
confidence for the reason that it does not appear probable that
the informant after being made unconscious by the accused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9928 of 2026(3) dt.10-04-2026
3/5
person by putting uncle chip could have walked back home with
a son as the informant alleges that she was made unconscious
and thereafter she was assaulted and the accused followed her
and her son to the house and again assaulted her, abused and
took away her belonging. It is next submitted that allegation
against the petitioner is general and omnibus in nature, it is
further submitted that petitioner had instituted Shaharghat P.S.
Case No.217 of 2022 against the husband of the present
informant alleging that on pretext to giving Govt. job, the
husband of the informant took him a lakhs of rupees and in the
said retaliation, the instant F.I.R. came to be instituted.
5. Learned senior counsel after making submissions
on merit fairly submits that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has
been issued but then it is submitted that facts of the case is also
required to be appreciated and anticipatory bail should not be
rejected in a mechanical manner merely for the reason that
process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been there, it is also
submitted that prior to issuing process under Section 82 Cr.P.C.
the learned Magistrate has to assign reason but then the order
issuing process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is bereft of any reason,
it is also submitted no doubt allegation are there in the F.I.R. but
then as far as this petitioner is concerned, there is no specific
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9928 of 2026(3) dt.10-04-2026
4/5
allegation against him, it is further submitted that even wife of
the petitioner came to be implicated in the instant case only with
an intent to course the family into submission so that the
petitioner comprises Saharghat P.S. Case No. 217 of 2022
instituted against husband of the present informant. It is also
submitted that wife of this petitioner namely, Lalita Kant has
approached the Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr.
Misc. No.9351 of 2026 and the same to be allowed by an order
dated 24.03.2026.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for
the informant oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner but then the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant is not in a position to rebut the submission of
learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that
petitioner earlier has instituted Saharghat P.S. Case No. 217 of
2022 against the husband of the instant informant and that the
allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. is general and
omnibus in nature.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, I am inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail
to the petitioner.
8. Let the petitioner, as named above, in the event of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9928 of 2026(3) dt.10-04-2026
5/5
his arrest or surrender within four weeks from today, be
enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees
Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Benipatti, Madhubani, in connection with Madhwapur P.S. Case
No. 03 of 2023, subject to the conditions laid down under
section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section
482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
sanjeev/-
U T
Checking your session…