Md. Arman v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89906 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-244 Year-2025 Thana- BEGUSARAI MUFFASIL DistrictBegusarai ====================================================== 1.
Md. Arman son of Md. Nayin @ Md. Nayeemuddin Resident of VillageHardiya (Hardia), Chilmil, Ward No 11, PS- Muffasil, District -Begusarai 2.
Md. Manovar @ Md. Manowar Son of Late Abdul Barik Resident of Village- Hardiya (Hardia), Chilmil, Ward No 11, PS- Muffasil, District -Begusarai 3.
Md. Hanjala @ Mr. Mister @ Mohammad Hanjala son of Md. Abutaliv @ Md. Abutalim Resident of Village- Hardiya (Hardia), Chilmil, Ward No 11, PS- Muffasil, District -Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners :
Mr. Sandip Kumar Gautam, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 10-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 285, 293, 132 and 352 of the B.N.S..
3. As per the prosecution case, on 09.07.2025 at about 06:15 pm, when the police was on patrol duty with armed forces to maintain law and order during the Bihar Bandh and By-
2/4 Election, 2025, they found that around 40 to 50 villagers had blocked State Highway, causing obstruction by putting J.C.B. machines and other vehicles, thereby causing obstruction in public movement and creating commotion in a violent manner, causing severe inconvenience to the passengers. It is further alleged that when the police tried to intervene, the accused persons created hindrance in discharge of their official duties.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence. Petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case merely on suspicion. Allegation of assault is general and omnibus and no specific accusation of overt act has been alleged against these petitioners. Similarly situated co-accused persons have already been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 06.01.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 84276 of 2025.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and submitted that petitioners are named in the F.I.R. with specific accusation that they, along with other F.I.R. named accused persons and 40 to 50 unknown persons created
3/4 obstruction on the state highway and also created hindrance in discharge of official duties of the police officials. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 has got one criminal antecedent and Petitioner No. 2 has got two criminal antecedents.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and fact that Petitioner No. 2 has got two criminal antecedents, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to Petitioner No. 2 is rejected.
7. So far as Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 are concerned, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, general and omnibus nature of accusation and claim based on parity, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 is allowed.
8. Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 be enlarged on bail on furnishing bailbond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Begusarai in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 244 of 2025, subject to condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S..
4/4
9. With the aforesaid directions, this application stands disposed of.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashank/- U T