SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 3414

PATNA HIGH COURT
Partha Sarthy, J
Ravindra Das @ Ravindra Kumar Das @ Pampali – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3385 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Sharad Kumar Verma, Advocate, Mr. Sagar Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Hemant Ray, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, APP

The court denied anticipatory bail due to evidence of grievous harm and insufficient grounds for claim of false implication.

Headnote:The court considered the application for anticipatory bail under Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3385 of 2026, evaluating the allegations against the petitioner under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The facts indicate a grievous assault during a land dispute, disputed by the petitioner citing false implication and procedural delays. Ultimately, the court found no grounds for bail, stating the nature of the injury did not support pre-trial release.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

2 28-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Kesariya P.S. Case no.228 of 2025 registered under sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 329(3), 76, 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 . 3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that while she was seated at the door-step of her house, the four named accused persons including the petitioner herein came there and started to hurl abuses. On protest by the informant, it is stated that the petitioner assaulted her with a sharp edged weapon severing her finger from her leg.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The manner of occurrence is other than what has been narrated in the F.I.R. There is delay of two days in lodging of the F.I.R. and the cause of false implication is land dispute between the parties. The alleged injury is not on a vital part of the body. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent and undertakes to cooperate in the investigation.

5. The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner of having assaulted the informant with a sharp edged weapon/tanguli leading to severing of the left leg’s finger from the body and the injury having been found to be grievous in nature, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail and the application is rejected.

Court below within a period of four weeks.

aforesaid period and prays for regular bail, the same shall be considered on its own merits without being prejudiced by this order of rejection.

(Partha Sarthy, J)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top