When a village altercation produces an FIR citing attempt to murder, the pre-arrest bail analysis comes down to attribution: who is alleged to have caused which injury. In Punkal Dev v. State of Bihar (Cr. Misc. No. 71391 of 2026, order dated 30 October 2026), Justice Soni Shrivastava of the Patna High Court granted anticipatory bail to five petitioners from East Champaran in Chakia P.S. Case No. 183 of 2018, registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 325, 307 and 379 IPC. The dispute began over feeding cattle; the injury report showed simple lacerations; and the single grievous injury was attributed to a co-accused who was not before the court. With no chargesheet filed and no proclamation process issued in six years, the court extended protection on conditions.
The occurrence and the FIR
The FIR alleged that the accused, including the five petitioners, assaulted the informant Rabindra Dev and caused injuries. Petitioner no. 1 was alleged to have struck the informant on the head, petitioner no. 2 on the leg; the remaining petitioners faced allegations the defence characterised as general and omnibus. The genesis, as recorded in the order, was prosaic: a dispute over feeding cattle that escalated from words to blows — the classic reciprocal village occurrence that produces rival FIRs and decade-long trials.
The three facts that decided the application
Annexure-2, the injury report, showed simple lacerations against the petitioners' alleged acts.
The sole grievous injury was ascribed to co-accused Chunnu — not any petitioner.
The trial court's report confirmed no chargesheet and no steps under Sections 82–83 CrPC despite the FIR dating to 2018.
To these the petitioners added clean antecedents, an explanation for the delay — they were working outside — and an undertaking to cooperate with the investigation and trial. The State's opposition rested on the FIR allegations themselves, which the court weighed against the medical record rather than accepting at face value.
Reading the order in the law's framework
Anticipatory bail in group-clash cases consistently turns on individualisation. Sections 147, 148 and 149 IPC permit constructive liability at trial, but at the bail stage courts distinguish between the accused who allegedly wielded the decisive blow and those swept in by membership of the crowd. The order also illustrates the significance of the coercive-process check: before granting pre-arrest bail in older FIRs, the Patna High Court routinely calls for a report from the court below, and the presence or absence of proclamation under Sections 82–83 CrPC frequently decides whether the applicant is treated as a fugitive or as a person the process never pursued.
Conditions and enforcement
- Surrender window: the protection operates on arrest or surrender before the court below within four weeks.
- Bonds: Rs 10,000 each with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the concerned court.
- Family surety: one bailor per petitioner must be a family member or close relative — Patna's standard traceability device.
- Cooperation clause with a complainant trigger: if the petitioners fail to cooperate, the informant herself may apply to cancel the bonds — a notable allocation of enforcement initiative to the first party.
Practice note: In reciprocal village-clash FIRs, the anticipatory bail brief should be built as a table: each petitioner, the act attributed, the injury it allegedly caused, and the medical gradation of that injury — with the trial court's report on chargesheet and process status annexed. Where the grievous injury belongs to someone else's alleged act, that single row of the table usually carries the application.
Frequently Asked Questions
How did the court deal with the Section 307 IPC allegation?
By testing it against the injury report. The dispute originated in a quarrel over cattle feeding, the injuries on record were simple lacerations, and the one grievous injury was attributed to co-accused Chunnu, who was not a petitioner. At the pre-arrest stage, that attribution gap substantially weakened the attempt-to-murder framing against the petitioners.
Did the six-year-old FIR hurt the petitioners?
The delay in approaching the court was explained — the petitioners were working outside the State — and, importantly, the trial court's report showed no chargesheet and no process under Sections 82 and 83 CrPC. Unlike an absconder evading proclamation, a person against whom no coercive process has issued stands on better footing.
What are "general and omnibus" allegations, and why do they matter?
Allegations that sweep all accused together — everyone assaulted, everyone looted — without assigning individual acts. Courts treat such pleading with caution in group-clash FIRs, because reciprocal village disputes commonly rope in entire households. Specific attribution, matched to the medical record, is what separates the accused who must face custody from those who need not.
What conditions were imposed?
Release on arrest or surrender within four weeks, on bonds of Rs 10,000 each with two sureties of the like amount; one bailor must be a family member or close relative; the petitioners must cooperate with the investigation and trial, failing which the informant may apply for cancellation of their bail bonds; and the conditions of Section 438(2) CrPC / Section 482(2) BNSS apply.