Patna High Court
Rajnish Kumar Singh @ Rajneesh Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner subject to the stipulated conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Rajnish Kumar Singh, was implicated in a robbery and assault case (P.S. Case No.114 of 2025) involving alleged use of firearms, assault with an iron rod, and theft of valuables. He contended that the allegations were false, stemming from a personal dispute, and that the injuries were minor with no arms seized. The prosecution opposed his anticipatory bail, citing the seriousness of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Court, noting the presence of a case‑and‑counter‑case and the relatively simple nature of the injuries, decided to grant anticipatory bail subject to strict conditions. The order directed the petitioner to furnish a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and comply with conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC/Section 482 BNS Sanhita given the alleged offences.
- Whether the alleged offences constitute a serious case that warrants denial of bail.
- Whether the absence of seizure of arms and the claim of false implication affect the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 352
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- robbery
- assault
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 438
- Section 482
- criminal procedure
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14356 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-114 Year-2025 Thana- Patour District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Rajnish Kumar Singh @ Rajneesh Kumar Singh S/o Jagdeo Singh @ Jagdeo
Prasad Singh R/o Village - Lagma, P.S - Singhiya, District - Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rohit Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Nityanand
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 26-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Pator P.S. Case No.114 of 2025, F.I.R dated
01.11.2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 303(2), 352 and 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, on 29.10.2025 at
about 6:00 P.M., while the informant was returning home from
Usma Math market, he was allegedly intercepted by accused
Rajnish Kumar Singh and others travelling in a four-wheeler
(BR33AT7212). The accused allegedly surrounded the
informant, pointed pistols at him, and forced him out of his car.
It is alleged that Rajnish Kumar Singh assaulted him with an
iron rod on his leg, Abhishek Kumar Singh punched him and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14356 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
2/4
threw a chemical substance into his eyes causing burning, and
other accused restrained him. The accused allegedly snatched
gold and silver ornaments worth Rs.1,50,000 and also took
Rs.13,000 kept in the car. The informant’s son and other
occupants were allegedly forced out at gunpoint and assaulted.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there
is case and counter case and the allegation against this petitioner
is of having assaulted the informant on his left leg but the
injuries are simple in nature and the petitioner submits that for
ulterior reasons, he has been falsely implicated in the present
case. It has further been submitted that the informant is a
neighbor of matrimonial house of the petitioner’s daughter and
the informant had a dispute with the father-in-law of the
petitioner’s daughter and therefore, in order to pressurize the
father-in-law of the petitioner’s daughter, the instant case is said
to have been filed. Though, the case is registered under the
Arms Act, but there is no seizure of the same. Lastly, it has been
submitted that the petitioner has one criminal antecedent but he
is on bail in the said case.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14356 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
3/4
that there is case and counter case and the allegation against this
petitioner is of having assaulted the informant on his left leg but
the injuries are simple in nature. Accordingly, this Court is
inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of
his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M.-IX, Samastipur, in
connection with Pator P.S. Case No.114 of 2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita and with other 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 his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14356 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026
4/4
(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)
sharun/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.