Patna High Court
Raja Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
Summary
Petitioners Raja Kumar Singh and Sonu Kumar Singh applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in connection with PS Mohiuddin Nagar Case No.116/2025, which alleges offences under several sections of the B.N.S., 2023. They contend they have been falsely implicated by the informant, arguing inconsistencies in the informant's account of the assault and injuries. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the alleged grievous injuries and the credibility of the informant's statements. The court examined the contradictions and the nature of the alleged offences but was not persuaded that the petitioners were unlikely to be involved. Consequently, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail, rejecting the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under the circumstances of the case
- Whether the informant's allegations are sufficient to deny bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 109(1), 115(2), 118(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- grievous hurt
- criminal procedure
- Section 438 CrPC
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17492 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-116 Year-2025 Thana- MOHIUDDIN NAGAR District-
Samastipur
======================================================
1. Raja Kumar Singh S/o Kamaldev Singh R/o Village- Anand Golba, PS-
Mohiuddin Nagar, Distt.- Samastipur
2. Sonu Kumar Singh S/o Kamaldev Singh R/o Village- Anand Golba, PS-
Mohiuddin Nagar, Distt.- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md Shadab Alam Wazdi
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 28-04-2026 1. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioners,
learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Mohiuddinnagar P.S. Case No.116/2025, registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(2),
303(2), 109(1), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits
that petitioner no.1 is a person with clean antecedent and
petitioner no.2 has antecedent of one case and the informant
alleges that he along with his friend were returning home after
watching an orchestra programme when they were intercepted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17492 of 2026(2) dt.28-04-2026
2/3
by the accused persons including the petitioners and on orders
of Saurav, accused Sonu fired but the shot misfired, thereafter
Sonu assaulted him by butt of pistol on head causing injury to
him, thereafter Raja, Rajesh and Mantu assaulted by farsha,
tengari and sword and Prince with sharp weapon assaulted on
leg and body.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits
that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case
by the informant. It is next submitted that side of the informant
had entered the house of the petitioners with an intent to outrage
the modesty of a woman for which Mohiuddinagar P.S. Case
No.121 of 2025 has been instituted. It is also submitted that
though it is alleged that Raja along with others assaulted the
informant by farsha, tengari and sword but then the wound is
lacerated, when farsha, tengari and sword are sharp edged
weapon. It is further submitted that Sonu is alleged to have
assaulted by butt of pistol causing injury on head but then the
said allegation is exaggerated as earlier the informant alleges
that Sonu fired and the shot misfired.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that the injury
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17492 of 2026(2) dt.28-04-2026
3/3
suffered by the injured on head has been opined to be grievous
in nature and head is a vital part of the body. It is also submitted
that informant initially was admitted at PMCH where his
fardbeyan was recorded and thereafter he was referred to higher
center i.e. AIIMS, Patna. It is next submitted that no doubt the
wound were lacerated and the weapon alleged to have been used
are sharp edged weapon but then farsha, tengari and sword have
both blunt and sharp side. It is also submitted that Sonu is
alleged to have assaulted by butt of pistol causing injury on
head. It is next submitted that it does not appear probable that
the informant would try to implicate someone falsely in the case
who were not involved in the occurrence of assault. The learned
APP submits that the investigation is continuing.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail
to the petitioners.
7. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioners
is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…