Patna High Court
Nitish Kumar Singh @ Nitish KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Nitish Kumar Singh, was implicated in a criminal case (PS No.317/2020) alleging offences under Sections 341, 323, 354, 379, 504 and 34 of the IPC, including assault, attempted firing and outrage of modesty. He contended that the allegations were false, arising from a land dispute, that the injuries were minor, no firearm injury occurred, and that he was a student with a clean antecedent. The State opposed his application for anticipatory bail. The High Court, after considering the facts and the petitioner’s claim of false implication, granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., including bond and surety requirements and compliance with trial attendance. The order also stipulated that any concealment of criminal antecedent or future similar offences could lead to cancellation of bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 341, 323, 354, 379, 504 and 34 of the IPC.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of false implication and clean antecedent justifies the grant of anticipatory bail.
- What conditions may be imposed under Section 438 of the CrPC and Section 482 of the B.N.S.S. when granting anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 41, 438
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 34, 341, 354, 379, 504
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- land dispute
- IPC offences
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11821 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-317 Year-2020 Thana- GHORASAHAN District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Nitish Kumar Singh @ Nitish Kumar, S/o Rampravesh Singh R/o Village-
Nanaura, P.S-Ghorasahan, District- East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Shankar Shrivastava, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 26-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with
Ghorasahan P.S. Case No. 317 of 2020 registered for the
offences under Sections 341, 323, 354, 379, 504, 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he,
along with other named accused persons, came variously armed
with iron rod and other weapons and it is alleged that co-
accused Rampravesh Singh assaulted with bamboo on the head
of the informant's uncle, Jay Prakash. It is further alleged that
the petitioner had started firing, however, the informant
managed to escape and it is also alleged that the petitioner tried
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11821 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
2/4
to outrage the modesty of a member of the informant's family.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in a case which arises out
of a land dispute between the parties. It has further been
submitted that the injuries sustained by the injured persons were
found to be simple in nature and as far as the allegations of
firing is concerned, no firearm injury has been sustained by
anybody and the same was frivolous and alleged only to
implicate the petitioner falsely. It has also been submitted that
the petitioner happens to be a student of NIT, Karnataka, at the
relevant time and in fact he was also granted benefit under
Section 41(1) of the Cr.P.C., while the police had submitted
charge-sheet. It has also been submitted that the delay in
approaching the Court was on account of the fact that initially
the petitioner was on police bail and subsequently the learned
Trial court took cognizance under Section 341, 323, 324, 354,
379, 504, 34 of the IPC on 09.09.2025. It has also been
submitted that for the same occurrence there was a case and
counter case lodged on behalf of the mother of the petitioner. It
has lastly been submitted that the petitioner carries clean
antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11821 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
3/4
for anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, let the
petitioner above named be released on anticipatory bail, in the
event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below
within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail
bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below
where the case is pending/successor court in connection with
Ghorasahan P.S. Case No. 317 of 2020, subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S.
as well as subject to the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his close
relative.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present in
Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates, or in
violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the
petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the Court
concerned.
(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in similar nature
of offence in future, the prosecution shall be at liberty
to move for cancellation of his bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11821 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
4/4
found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal
antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. 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 prayer for anticipatory bail is
allowed.
8. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made in
this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
U T
Checking your session…