Conditions for anticipatory bail under IPC provisions analyzed; delay in lodging complaints may affect credibility.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER

2 29-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a complaint case punishable for the offence under Sections 436 , 376, 194, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code , in which, cognizance has been taken under Sections 354(A), 427 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. It is alleged that on the alleged date of occurrence, these petitioners, variously armed, entered the house of complainant, abused & disrobed complainant and assaulted her & other family members and thereafter, set the house of complainant on fire.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that complainant is close door neighbour and in order to grab the land of petitioners, this false and concocted case has been lodged. The complaint has been lodged after a delay of 6 days of the alleged occurrence and there is no plausible explanation of delay. Allegation is general and omnibus. Petitioners claim clean antecedent.

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

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the above named petitioners, in the event of their arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M. - X, East Champaran at Motihari in connection with Complaint Case No. 3127 of 2023, subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. / Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)