Rajesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2025)

Rajesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted to petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 4 on bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount, subject to Section 438(2), Cr.P.C. conditions and special conditions (including contribution of Rs. 5,000/- each, totalling Rs. 10,000/-, by Demand Draft of the local State Bank of India towards the injured's medical assistance, presence of a relative bailor with bona fide proof, appearance on every Trial Court date, and abstention from witness tampering and fresh offences); the prayer of petitioner no. 3 (Mohit Kumar) stands rejected with liberty to press afresh if found not to be a minor.

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 4, who apprehend arrest in connection with Khizersarai P.S. Case No. 102 of 2025 (offences under sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 74, 329(3) and 109 of the B.N.S.). +2 more

Court's answer

Taking into account the parties' submissions, that one petitioner is a lady, that the injuries are simple in nature, and that petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 4 have no criminal antecedent, the Court extended the privilege of anticipatory bail to petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 4, with conditions including payment of Rs. 5,000/- each (totalling Rs. 10,000/-).

Ratio / Principle

Liberty was granted to petitioner no. 3, Mohit Kumar, to withdraw his prayer for anticipatory bail and to press it afresh if he is found not to be a minor; accordingly, his prayer stands rejected.

Key takeaways

The petitioners were directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender within four weeks of receipt of the order, on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned JMFC, 1st Class, Gaya, in connection with Khizersarai P.S. Case No. 102 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.ratio¶33
The anticipatory bail was made subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- each (totalling Rs. 10,000/-), as undertaken by learned counsel for the petitioners, to be paid by Demand Draft of the local State Bank of India, submitted to the Trial Court to be handed over to the injured.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Rajiv Roy, J.), Criminal Miscellaneous No. 44383 of 2025, decided 16-07-2025: Family members (petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 4) apprehending arrest in Khizersarai (Gaya) P.S. Case No. 102 of 2025 - offences under sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 74, 329(3) and 109 of the B.N.S., arising out of a family/partition dispute with simple injuries on the informant's side - were granted anticipatory bail on bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount, to the satisfaction of the JMFC, 1st Class, Gaya, subject to Section 438(2), Cr.P.C. conditions. Special conditions: payment of Rs. 5,000/- each (totalling Rs. 10,000/-) by Demand Draft of the local State Bank of India, submitted to the Trial Court to be handed over to the injured; one bailor to be a family member/relative with official proof of bona fides; appearance on every Trial Court date, default on two consecutive dates without plausible reason entailing cancellation of the bail bond by the Trial Court itself; no inducement of, promise to, or threat to witnesses nor tampering with evidence; and desistance from fresh criminal offences, failing which the State may seek cancellation. The Court noted that one petitioner is a lady and that petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 4 have no criminal antecedent. Petitioner no. 3, Mohit Kumar, was permitted to withdraw his anticipatory-bail prayer owing to confusion regarding his age, with liberty to press afresh if found not to be a minor; his prayer stood rejected.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44383 of 2025

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-102 Year-2025 Thana- KHIJARSARAI District- Gaya

======================================================

Rajesh Kumar S/O Naresh Ram Resident of village- Kaith Vigaha, P.S.Khizersarai, District- Gaya, Bihar, Pin code-824233

Maya Devi W/O Rajesh Kumar Resident of village- Kaith Vigaha, P.S.Khizersarai, District- Gaya, Bihar, Pin code-824233

Mohit Kumar S/O Rajesh Kumar Resident of village- Kaith Bigaha, P.S.Khizersarai, District- Gaya, Bihar, Pin code-824233

Naresh Ram S/O Late Ram Vrat Ram Resident of village- Kaith Vigaha, P.S.- Khizersarai, District- Gaya, Bihar, Pin code-824233

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhinav Alok, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Lalan Kumar, APP

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY

ORAL ORDER

2 16-07-2025

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that there is confusion regarding the age of petitioner no. 3, Mohit Kumar and as such, he may be permitted to withdraw his prayer for anticipatory bail with liberty to press afresh if it is found that the petitioner, Mohit Kumar is not a minor.

Granting said liberty, the prayer put forwarded by

the petitioner no. 3, Mohit Kumar stands rejected.

Heard Mr. Abhinav Alok, learned counsel for the

petitioner and the State.

The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44383 of 2025(2) dt.16-07-2025 2/4

connection with Khizersarai P.S. Case No. 102 of 2025 for the offence under sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 74 and 329(3) and 109 of the B.N.S. lodged on 10.04.2025 by the informant, Anita Devi.

As per the prosecution story, on minor issue, the family member/accused attacked the informant side in which allegation is that the petitioner no. 3, Mohit Kumar alongwith family members assaulted the informant and her husband causing injuries. This led to the FIR.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that they are family members and only due to dispute relating to partition, the case has been lodged, the injuries have been found to be simple in nature and since, they are family members, petitioner nos. 1 and 2, on their own, without accepting the allegation and/or the outcome of the present petition in view of the fact that the informant’s side has alleged injuries, would like to contribute Rs. 5,000/- each (totalling Rs. 10,000/-) towards the medical assistance of the injured through Demand Draft issued by the local State Bank of India branch to be submitted before the ‘NAZARAT’ of concerned Court to be handed over to the informant after checking the credentials.

Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44383 of 2025(2) dt.16-07-2025 3/4

assault took place causing injuries to both the informant and her husband.

Taking into account the submissions of the parties as also that one of the petitioner is a lady, injuries have been found to be simple in nature and the petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 4 have no criminal antecedent, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail with conditions subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- each (totalling Rs. 10,000/-) as undertaken by the learned counsel for the petitioner to be paid by Demand Draft of local State Bank of India to be submitted to the Trial Court to be handed over to the injured.

Let the petitioners 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 JMFC - 1^st Class, Gaya in connection with Khizersarai P.S. Case No. 102 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

(i) one of the bailor should be the family member/relative of the petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 4 who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;

(ii) the petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 4 shall appear on each

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44383 of 2025(2) dt.16-07-2025 4/4

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 bond by the Trial Court itself;

(iii) the petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 4 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;

(iv) the petitioner nos. 1, 2 and 4 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