Bajrangi Kumar @ Bajarangi KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.878 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-28 Year-2025 Thana- MEHANDIGANJ District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Bajrangi Kumar @ Bajarangi Kumar Son of Jitendra Keshri Resident of
                 Village- Vidhupur, P.S.- Salimpur, District- Patna

                                                                                 ... ... Appellant/s
                                                      Versus
           1.    The State of Bihar
           2.     Shobha Kumari Wife of Kamlesh Kumar Das Resident of Village- Bidhupur,
                  P.S.- Salimpur, District- Patna
                                                                     ... ... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s     :       Ms.Smiti Bharti, Advocate
                 For the Respondent/s    :       Mr.Binay Krishna, Spl. PP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   07-05-2026                     Heard Ms.Smiti Bharti, learned counsel for the

                   appellant, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 and Mr.Binay

                   Krishna, learned Spl. P.P. for the State.

                               2.This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(2) against

                   refusal of the prayer for regular bail by order dated 21.01.2026

                   passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST (POA)

                   Act, Patna in connection with Mehandiganj P.S. Case No. 28 of

                   2025 corresponding to Special Case No. 259 of 2025 registered

                   under Sections 70(1) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Section

                   3(1)(w) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act.

                               3. Earlier the prayer for bail of the appellant was

                   rejected vide order dated 30.10.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal

                   (SJ) No. 2337 of 2025 by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.878 of 2026(4) dt.07-05-2026
                                             2/4




          Court.

                       4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

          appellant has clean antecedent. The allegation as alleged in the

          FIR is false and fabricated and the appellant has not committed

          any offence as alleged in the FIR. It appears from the FIR itself

          that no member of the appellant present at the relevant point of

          time of the incident and due to this reason no offence is made

          out against the appellant under the provisions of SC/ST Act. In

          fact although the victim has supported her case in her statement

          under Section 183 of B.N.S.S., 2023, learned counsel for the

          appellant submits that the trial has begun and the victim has

          deposed before the learned Trial Court as P.W.1 in which she

          has not supported the case of the prosecution, apart from that

          one member, namely, Ashok Kumar was also examined before

          the police and he has also not supported the case of the

          prosecution. Further submits that co-accused person, namely,

          Kaushal Kumar, against whom the similar allegation, has been

          granted bail by this Court vide order dated 30.04.2026 passed in

          Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 611 of 2026 and the police, after

          investigation, submitted chargesheet against the appellant and

          the appellant is in custody since 02.03.2025.

                       5. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.878 of 2026(4) dt.07-05-2026
                                             3/4




          learned Spl. P.P. for the State have vehemently opposed the

          prayer for bail of the appellant.

                       6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

          case, appellant has clean antecedent and similarly situated co-

          accused person has been granted bail by this Court as well as the

          victim has not supported the case of the prosecution during trial,

          let the appellant, above named, be released on bail on furnishing

          bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two

          sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned

          Exclusive Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Civil court (Sadar) in

          connection with Mehandiganj P.S. Case No. 28 of 2025

          corresponding to Special Case No. 259 of 2025, with the

          following conditions:-

                       (I) Appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall be

          properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court

          and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and

          on his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient

          reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

                       (II) If the appellant tampers with the evidence or the

          witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move

          for cancellation of bail.

                       (III) And, further condition that the court below shall
               Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.878 of 2026(4) dt.07-05-2026
                                                            4/4




                         verify the criminal antecedent of the appellant and in case at any

                         stage, it is found that the appellant has concealed his criminal

                         antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of

                         bail bond of the appellant. However, the acceptance of bail

                         bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be

                         delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

                                      7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and

                         this appeal stands allowed.



                                                (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-

U          T