Patna High Court
RAM BABU KUSHWAHA @ RAMBABU KUMAR KUSHWAHAversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to the appellant.
Summary
The appellant, Ram Babu Kushwaha, appealed the order of the District and Additional Sessions Judge rejecting his request for anticipatory bail in a case involving multiple offences including murder, attempt to murder, and offences under the Arms Act and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The FIR alleged that a land dispute led to firing and a bomb attack, resulting in the death of Baijnath Uraon and injuries to Miano Devi. The appellant contended that he was falsely implicated and that the FIR did not specifically allege his participation in the firing. The prosecution and the informant’s counsel argued that, even if the appellant did not fire the weapon, his presence encouraged the crime and he is a criminal. The High Court, after considering the submissions, found the allegations sufficient to deny anticipatory bail. Consequently, the appellant's prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the allegations of involvement in firing and bomb attack leading to death and injury.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- B.N.S. — s. 103, 109, 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 126(2), 191(2), 191(3), 324(4), 351(2), 351(3), 352
- Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(va), 3(i)(r)(s)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal law
- murder
- firearms
- SC/ST Act
- Arms Act
- land dispute
- false implication
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2326 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-124 Year-2024 Thana- MANSAHI District- Katihar
======================================================
Ram Babu Kushwaha @ Rambabu Kumar Kushwaha S/O Late Sarabjeet
Kushwaha R/O Pinda, P.S- Mansahi, Distt- Katihar
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. Mahendra Kumar Uraon S/O Late Chaudhary Uraon R/O Pinda, P.S-
Mansahi, Distt- Katihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Singh
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Binay Krishna
Mr.Ravindra Kr Sinha No.2
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 29-06-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The appellant has challenged the order dated
30.04.2025 passed by the learned District and Additional
Sessions Judge-1-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST, Katihar in
connection with G.R. No.6410 of 2024 arising out of Mansahi P.
S. Case No. 124 of 2024, instituted for the offences under
Sections 126(2), 115(2), 324(4), 109, 118(1), 118(2), 103,
191(2), 191(3), 352, 351(2), 351(3) of the B.N.S., Section 27 of
the Arms Act and Section 3(i)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled
Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2326 of 2025(4) dt.29-06-2026
2/3
whereby his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail has been
rejected.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submits that appellant has antecedent of three cases
and from perusal of the allegations as alleged in the FIR, it
would manifest that on account of dispute relating to land, it is
alleged that from the side of the appellant firing was resorted to
in which Baijnath Uraon received firearm injury leading to his
death. Further, Chandan and Mangal threw bomb and open
firing causing injury to one Miano Devi, who was admitted at
Sadar Hospital Katihar.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that no
specific allegation of firing is alleged against the appellant and
on account of dispute relating to land, he has been falsely
implicated in the instant case.
5. The learned Special P. P. as well as the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the informant vehemently
opposes the appeal and submits that what is not in dispute rather
stands admitted is that Baijnath Uraon died and he had suffered
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.2326 of 2025(4) dt.29-06-2026
3/3
firearm injury. Further, one Miano Devi suffered firearm injury.
It is further submitted that appellant might not have committed
the occurrence of firing, but then appellant is a criminal and his
presence at the place of occurrence emboldened the other
accused to commit the occurrence of firing leading to death of
Baijnath Uraon.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P. as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the appellant.
7. The prayer of the appellant for anticipatory bail
stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.