Rajmohan @ Rajmohan PrasadversusThe State of Bihar

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                    CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.233 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-496 Year-2025 Thana- DHANARUA District- Patna
                 ======================================================
           1.     Rajmohan @ Rajmohan Prasad S/O Late Subalal Prasad R/O Village-
                  Pabhera, P.S.- Dhanrua, Dist.- Patna
           2.    Sunny Yadav @ Anup Kumar S/O Rajmohan R/O Village- Pabhera, P.S.-
                 Dhanrua, Dist.- Patna

                                                                                 ... ... Appellant/s
                                                      Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.    Sunaina Devi W/O Chaitunath Sapera R/O Village- Pabhera, P.S.- Dhanrua,
                 Dist.- Patna

                                                           ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s      :      Mr. Sikandar
                 For the Respondent/s     :      Mr. Sadanand Paswan
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   17-06-2026                 1.       Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and

                   the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.

                               2. The appellants have challenged the order dated

                   22.12.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act,

                   Patna Sadar in connection with ABP No. 5014 of 2025 arising

                   out of Dhanrua PS Case No. 496 of 2025, instituted for the

                   offences under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S and

                   Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes

                   (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act,

                   whereby their prayer for grant of anticipatory bail has been

                   rejected.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.233 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
                                             2/3




                       3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that

          appellants are persons with clean antecedent and the informant

          alleges that Rajmohan, Sunny and Bhusan intercepted her and

          her husband and Sunny fired on account of which, her husband

          got injured and thereafter he was admitted in a hospital from

          where he was referred to P.M.C.H where he died during the

          course of treatment on 11.08.2025.

                       4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

          from perusal of the allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would

          manifest that specific allegation of firing at the husband of the

          informant is against Sunny. It is next submitted Rajmohan is

          father of Sunny. It is also submitted that it does not appear

          probable that father and son together would have committed the

          occurrence.

                       5. The learned Special PP opposes the appeal and

          submits that wife had instituted the instant case alleging that her

          husband was killed by Sunny and appellant no.1 along with

          Bhusan were also present at the place of occurrence. It is

          submitted that it does not appear probable that a wife would

          falsely try to implicate someone who was not involved in the

          killing of her husband. It is also submitted that no doubt,

          specific allegation of firing is against Sunny, but then presence
               Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.233 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
                                                            3/3




                         of Rajmohan and Bhusan at the place of occurrence emboldened

                         him to commit the occurrence of firing leading to death of the

                         husband of the informant.

                                      6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,

                         the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory

                         bail to the appellants.

                                      7. The prayer of the appellants for anticipatory bail

                         stands rejected.



                                                    (Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-

U          T