Patna High Court – Orders
Rakesh Mistry vs The State Of Bihar on 20 May, 2026
Author: Alok Kumar Pandey
Bench: Alok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32860 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-127 Year-2019 Thana- IMAMGANJ District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Rakesh Mistry son of Bhagwan Mistry Resident of Village -Dubhal PS
-Imamganj Dist -Gaya
2. Bhuini Devi Wife of Bhagwan Mistry @ Bhagwani Mistry Resident of
Village -Dubhal PS -Imamganj Dist -Gaya
3. Sunita Devi wife of Rakesh Mistry Resident of Village -Dubhal PS
-Imamganj Dist -Gaya
4. Sangita Devi @ Sangita Kumari Wife of Vipin Mistry Resident of Village
-Dubhal PS -Imamganj Dist -Gaya
5. kavita Devi Wife of Mukesh Mistry Resident of Village -Dubhal PS
-Imamganj Dist -Gaya
6. Mukesh Mistry Son of Bhagwan Mistry Resident of Village -Dubhal PS
-Imamganj Dist -Gaya
7. Jugesh Kumar @ Yugesh Kumar Son of Bhagwan Mistry Resident of
Village -Dubhal PS -Imamganj Dist -Gaya
8. Umesh Mistry @ Umesh Kumar son of Bhagwan Mistry Resident of Village
-Dubhal PS -Imamganj Dist -Gaya
9. Vipin Mistry Son of Bhagwan Mistry Resident of Village -Dubhal PS
-Imamganj Dist -Gaya
10. Bhagwan Mistry Son of Late Kesher Mistry Resident of Village -Dubhal PS
-Imamganj Dist -Gaya
... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 20-05-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
A.P.P. for the State through virtual mode.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Imamganj P.S. Case No. 127 of 2019 registered
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32860 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
2/5
for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 307,
3. As per prosecution case, petitioners, variously
armed, came to the house of the informant and abused him. It is
further alleged that petitioner no. 1 made firing upon the
informant but informant escaped unhurt. When informant’s
mother came to rescue, petitioner nos. 2 and 3 assaulted upon
the head of informant’s mother by means of gadasa and farsa
respectively causing injury on her head. It is further alleged that
upon the instigation of petitioner no. 10, all the accused persons
assaulted the informant’s mother by means of lathi-danda and
took away utensils and household articles worth Rs. 10,000/-.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence as
alleged in the FIR. He further submits that alleged occurrence
took place on 28.07.2019 whereas written application has been
given to the police by the informant on 01.08.2019 i.e. after
delay of 3 days whereas police station was only 4 km. away
from the place of occurrence. He further submits that there is
allegation that petitioner nos. 2 and 3 assaulted the informant’s
mother by means of gadasa and farsa respectively which are
sharp cutting weapons, but it is submitted by learned counsel for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32860 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
3/5
the petitioners that informant’s mother did not sustain any sharp
cut injury on her head. He further submits that both parties are
pattidar and long standing dispute is going on between them.
He further submits that due to some petty dispute, some
altercation took place between both the parties and in that
course informant’s mother fell down on the ground and
sustained some minor injuries and taking advantage of this fact
the informant has lodged the instant case with fabricated story
implicating all the family members. He further submits that FIR
is of the year 2019 and the impugned order dated 02.06.2025
clearly reflects that investigation is still going on. He further
submits that no process under Section 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. has
been directed to be issued against the petitioners. He further
submits that after lapse of near about seven years, the
investigating officer of this case has not collected the injury
report of informant’s mother, which reflects the casual approach
of the I.O. He further submits that Section 379 of the IPC is
nothing but merely a super-addition. He further submits that in
the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no
offence, as alleged in the FIR, is made out against the
petitioners. Apart from that, petitioners bear clean antecedent. It
has been orally submitted that petitioners will not abscond
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32860 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
4/5
rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove their
innocence.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that
petitioners are FIR named accused and they cannot escape from
the allegation made in the prosecution story. However, learned
APP has conceded this fact that the role of I.O. is very
significant in investigation but in the present case, despite lapse
of seven years, the I.O. has not collected the injury report of
informant’s mother.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, FIR has been registered in the year 2019 and up till now
investigation has not completed, petitioners and informant are
pattidar and there is land dispute between the parties, keeping in
view clean antecedent of petitioners, argument advanced on
behalf of both sides and also taking into consideration the
material available on record, the petitioners above-named, in the
event of their arrest or surrender before the learned trial court
within a period of six weeks from today, be released on
anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees
ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32860 of 2026(2) dt.20-05-2026
5/5
Sherghati at Gaya in connection with Imamganj P.S. Case No.
127 of 2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. However, it is made clear that if the investigating
Officer of the case files an application before the learned trial
court bringing to its notice that petitioners despite giving
assurance to this Court are not co-operating in the investigation,
in that event, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel
the bail bonds of the petitioners.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
shahzad/-
U T
