Patna High Court
Ajay Kumar Singh @ Ajay SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to a bond and specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, four residents of Sahpur village, were implicated in Sonepur Police Station Case No. 42 of 2026 for alleged offences including murder, attempt to murder, and other violent crimes under the B.N.S. The prosecution alleged that on 12 January 2026 the accused, armed with swords and rods, attacked an informant and his son, causing injuries and theft of a gold chain. The petitioners contended they were falsely implicated, highlighted a case and counter‑case between the parties, and submitted medical certificates showing only simple injuries, along with a clean criminal record. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the charges. The High Court, noting the simple nature of injuries, the existence of a case‑and‑counter‑case, and the petitioners' lack of antecedents, granted anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.10,000 bond, sureties, and strict conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners despite the serious nature of the offences alleged.
- Whether the simple injuries and the existence of a case‑and‑counter‑case mitigate the need for custody.
- Whether the petitioners' clean antecedent record warrants bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- Section 482(2)
- simple injuries
- case and counter case
- bail conditions
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23785 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-42 Year-2026 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran
======================================================
1. Ajay Kumar Singh @ Ajay Singh Son of Dev Kumar Singh Resident of
Village - Sahpur, Police Station - Sonpur, District - Saran.
2. Mintu Singh Son of Late Braj Nandan Singh @ Vrijnandan Singh Resident
of Village - Sahpur, Police Station - Sonpur, District - Saran.
3. Raj Gaurav Son of Mintu Singh Resident of Village - Sahpur, Police Station
- Sonpur, District - Saran.
4. Dev Kumar Singh Son of Late Ramayan Singh Resident of Village - Sahpur,
Police Station - Sonpur, District - Saran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 16-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Sonepur P.S. Case No. 42 of 2026, dated
14.01.2026 registered for the offence punishable under Sections
126(2), 115(2), 109, 303(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S.
3. As per prosecution case, on 12.01.2026 at about 10:00
a.m., the accused persons, armed with swords, rods, and other
deadly weapons, came to his house, whereupon Dev Kumar
Singh ordered to kill him, and co-accused Raj Gaurav assaulted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23785 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
2/4
his son Shivam on the neck with a sword with intent to kill.
When the informant intervened, he was also assaulted, causing
injuries to both. It is further alleged that the accused persons
snatched his gold chain and threatened to kill them if any case is
filed against them.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the
present case. It is next submitted that, for the same incident,
there is a case and counter-case between the parties, in which
both sides have sustained injuries. The injuries sustained by the
informant and his son are found to be simple in nature. Counsel
for the petitioners, in order to substantiate his submission
regarding injuries sustained by the petitioners and their family
members, has also appended prescriptions issued from the
District Hospital with the instant anticipatory bail petition. It is
further submitted that there are no specific allegations against
petitioner nos. 1, 2, and 4 whereas with regard to petitioner no.
3, there is an allegation of overt act but, the injuries have been
found to be simple in nature. It is also submitted that the
allegations levelled against the petitioners are not corroborated
by the nature of the injuries. Lastly, it is submitted that the
petitioners are persons of clean antecedents.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23785 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
3/4
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has
opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the fact fact that there is a case and counter case
between the parties and the injuries sustained by the Informant
and his son are found to be simple in nature and as also the fact
that the petitioners bear no criminal antecedent, let the above
named petitioners, be released on bail, in the event of their
arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a
period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Saran at Chapra in connection with Sonepur P.S.
Case No. 42 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. as well as the following
conditions:
(i) One of the bailors should be the family
member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide
official document / personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date
before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive
dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of their
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23785 of 2026(2) dt.16-04-2026
4/4
bail bond by the district court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
rishi/-
U T
Checking your session…