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) 3649

PATNA HIGH COURT
Prabhat Kumar Singh, J
Himanshu Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.145 of 2026 | PS. Case No.-247 Year-2023



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Abhishek Kumar
For the Respondents: Ms. Rina Sinha, A.P.P.

The court differentiated between specific and general allegations in bail considerations, granting bail to those without direct involvement.

Headnote:The case revolves around anticipatory bail application of the petitioners against charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code for causing injuries. The court observed that specific allegations were made against only one petitioner while others faced general accusations. Subsequently, anticipatory bail was granted to petitioners with clean antecedents, while it was denied to the petitioner with severe allegations. The result, as ordered, allows bail for specific petitioners under certain conditions.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

2 20-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

2. Petitioners apprehend arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341 , 323, 324, 325, 307, 379, 504, 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. As per prosecution case, all the F.I.R. named accused persons, including these petitioners assaulted son of the informant as a result of which he sustained multiple injuries and one of the injuries is grievous in nature.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that specific accusation of assault is against co-accused Sanju Mahto, Dhruv Mahto and Rikesh Mahto and petitioner no. 2. So far rest of the petitioners are concerned, allegation against them is general and omnibus and there is no specific allegation of any overt act against them. Petitioners claim clean antecedent.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application and submits that petitioner No. 2 assaulted son of the informant as a result of which he sustained grievous injury.

6. In view of the fact that petitioner No. 2 caused grievous injury, prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner No.

2 is refused

7. However, considering the nature of accusation and clean antecedents against petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 4 & 5, the anticipatory bail with regard to petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 4 & 5 is allowed and it is ordered that the above named petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 4 & 5 in the event of their arrest/surrender before the court below within a period of eight weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari in connection with Paharpur P. S. Case No. 247 of 2023, subject to condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, 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