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) 3651

PATNA HIGH COURT
PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH, J
Raj Kumar @ Raj Kumar Prasad – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91707 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Dharmesh Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr.Mithlesh Kumar Khare

Anticipatory bail granted due to lack of direct complaint against the petitioner in a case of accidental fire.

Headnote:The Court analyzed the petitioner’s apprehension of arrest under Sections 285, 427, 436 of IPC due to an accidental fire at his godown, which resulted in property damage but no fatalities. The petitioner argued for bail, citing lack of a complaint against him by the affected party and previous similar bail granted to another proprietor. The Court found merit in the petitioner’s submission, allowing anticipatory bail under specific conditions. The petitioner must surrender within eight weeks, being granted bail upon furnishing appropriate bonds.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

2 20-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence under Sections 285 , 427, 436 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. As per F.I.R., due to unknown reasons, fire took place in the godown of this petitioner where one drum of mobil was kept. The incident of fire also caused damage to adjacent residential building of Arun Kumar, situated near the godown and thereafter, godown was sealed by the informant at the instruction of superior officials and F.I.R. was lodged against proprietor of godown.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been made accused in this case only because he happens to be one of the proprietor of the godown. As a matter of fact, there was accidental fire in the godown, which did not cause any loss of life, except damage to the adjacent building of one Arun Kumar and damage to the petitioner himself, but said Arun Kumar has not filed any complaint against petitioner. He further submits that one of the proprietor, having similar and identical allegation namely Pankaj Kumar, has already been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 03.07.2024 passed in Cr.Misc. No. 37618 of

2024. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the event of arrest/surrender before the Court concerned within a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna City (Patna) in connection with Bypass P.S. Case No. 46 of 2024, subject to condition as laid down under Section 438 (2)

of the Cr.P.C. / Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

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