In Lal Babu Sahu v. State of Bihar, Criminal Miscellaneous No. 63419 of 2026 (decided 30 October 2026), the Patna High Court granted regular bail to a man accused of striking the informant on the head with a garasa, causing a bone-deep injury recorded as grievous, in Biraul P.S. Case No. 316 of 2020 of district Darbhanga. Justice Arun Kumar Jha rested the order on two facts: the petitioner had been in custody since 9 June 2026, and the chargesheet had been filed — the investigation no longer needed him in jail.
The allegation
The prosecution case arose from an incident in the informant's courtyard. The petitioner, allegedly acting on the instruction of co-accused Nathuni Sah, struck the informant on the head with a garasa — a sharp-edged implement — leaving a scalp wound of about three inches, bone-deep, medically described as grievous. Other accused were said to have assaulted the informant, attempted to strangle him, and snatched a gold locket. The FIR invoked Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 and 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the case having been registered in 2020, before the new criminal codes came into force.
The competing considerations
Against bail
A grievous, bone-deep head injury attributed with a specific role; an attempt-to-murder charge under Section 307 IPC; the State's grievance that the petitioner never surrendered after his anticipatory bail pleas were rejected and thereby delayed the trial by about six years; one prior case on record.
For bail
Custody since 9 June 2026; chargesheet already filed; the plea of false implication to be tested at trial; co-accused granted anticipatory bail as far back as 2021; trial yet to conclude, with the petitioner now available to face it.
The Court granted bail on bonds of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga, or the court concerned. The order is a reminder that pre-trial detention is not a punishment for earlier evasion: once the investigation is complete and a meaningful spell of custody has been undergone, the question becomes whether continued detention serves any purpose the conditions of bail cannot.
The conditions imposed
- Statutory conditions: the petitioner is bound by Section 480(3) of the BNSS — not to commit a similar offence, not to tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
- Close-relative bailor: one of the two bailors must be a close relative, tying the family to the petitioner's compliance.
- Attendance: appearance on every date fixed by the trial court is mandatory.
- Consequence of default: absence on three consecutive dates, or breach of any bail term, may lead to cancellation of the bail bond.
Reading the order as precedent for practice
For the defence, the order illustrates the sequencing that often works in injury cases carrying a Section 307 charge: once anticipatory bail fails, prolonged evasion compounds the problem, but a surrender followed by a few months of custody and the filing of the chargesheet creates a fresh and stronger footing for regular bail. For the prosecution and the informant, it shows where the leverage lies after bail is granted — strict enforcement of attendance conditions, and a cancellation application the moment the accused treats liberty casually. The six years the State says were lost to abscondence were not ignored; they were priced into the conditions rather than into further detention.
Practice note: A bail order of this kind decides nothing about guilt. The grievous-injury opinion, the attributed role and the plea of false implication all remain open for trial. What the order fixes is the framework of liberty: bonds, a family surety, and a short leash on attendance.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does filing of the chargesheet improve the case for regular bail?
Often, yes. Once investigation is complete, the principal purpose of custodial detention — preventing interference with the probe — loses force. Courts then weigh the period undergone, the nature of the injury or offence, antecedents, and the realistic timeline of trial.
Can bail be granted to an accused who earlier avoided surrendering?
It can, though non-surrender weighs against the accused. In this case the State argued the petitioner had delayed the trial by about six years after his anticipatory bail pleas failed, yet bail followed because custody of several months and a completed investigation shifted the balance. Courts typically respond to such history with stricter conditions rather than indefinite detention.
What conditions are commonly attached in such cases?
Besides bonds and sureties, courts increasingly require that one bailor be a close relative, mandate appearance on every date fixed by the trial court, and provide that absence on consecutive dates or breach of any term may lead to cancellation of the bail bond, alongside the statutory conditions under Section 480(3) BNSS.
Does parity with co-accused who got anticipatory bail help?
It is a relevant circumstance. Here co-accused had been granted anticipatory bail in 2021. Parity is never automatic — the role attributed to each accused matters — but a court will consider whether similarly placed persons are already at liberty.