Patna High Court
Binod Singh @ Binod Kumar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Binod Singh, was arrested on 17 October 2025 in connection with FIR No. 394 of 2025 alleging multiple offences under the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023, including assault and related charges. He applied for bail, asserting a clean criminal record and contending that the specific allegation of assault against the deceased pertains to a co‑accused, Suraj Kumar, with no direct allegation against him. The prosecution, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed bail, arguing that the petitioner participated in the assault on Santosh Kumar, resulting in grievous injuries. The court noted the petitioner's clean antecedent, the fact that a co‑accused had already been granted bail, and the prolonged period of custody. Consequently, the court granted bail on a Rs. 10,000 bond with two sureties, imposing conditions of cooperation, appearance, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of antecedents. The bail order was directed to be implemented by the Sub‑Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sherghati, Gaya.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the offences alleged under the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023.
- Whether the petitioner's clean antecedent and the grant of bail to a co‑accused justify release on bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 103, 109, 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 118(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(3), 74
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- assault
- clean antecedent
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- court conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21511 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-394 Year-2025 Thana- MOHANPUR District- Gaya
======================================================
Binod Singh @ Binod Kumar Singh Son of Deopati Narayan Singh @
Deopati Singh R/o Village - Jamuna, P.S. - Mohanpur, Dist. - Gayajee.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nand Kumar, APP
For the Informant : Ms. Richa Rajiv Singh, Advocate
Mr. Manish Kumar Paswan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 22-04-2026 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for
the petitioner, Ms. Richa Rajiv Singh, learned counsel for the
informant and Mr. Nand Kumar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
17.10.2025 in connection with Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 394 of
2025, F.I.R. dated 16.10.2025 for the offences punishable under
Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 118(2), 109, 74, 303(2),
351(3) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and later on Section 103 of
the BNS, 2023 was added.
3. According to prosecution case, all the accused
persons including this petitioner have assaulted to the informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21511 of 2026(3) dt.22-04-2026
2/4
and his family members due to which they received injuries.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. Although the petitioner is named
in the FIR but from perusal of the FIR it appears that the
specific allegation of assault against the deceased is attributed
against the co-accused person, namely, Suraj Kumar and there is
no allegation against the petitioner that he has assaulted the
deceased. The only allegation against the petitioner is that he
along with Malti Devi have assaulted to one Santosh Kumar. He
further submits that the police after investigation submitted the
charge sheet against the petitioner. He further submits that
similarly situated, co-accused, namely, Chandan Kumar & anr.
have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated
23.03.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 6471 of 2026. The
petitioner is in custody since 17.10.2025.
5. The learned counsel for the informant as well as
learned Additional Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that from
perusal of the FIR it appears that the petitioner has participated
in the present crime in question and he has assaulted to Santosh
Kumar due to which he received injury and injury report suggest
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21511 of 2026(3) dt.22-04-2026
3/4
that the injury is grievous in nature.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that the petitioner has clean antecedent, specific allegation of
assault against the deceased is against the co-accused Suraj
Kumar as who has been granted bail by this Court as well as
period of custody, let the petitioner, above named, 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 SDJM, Sherghati, Gaya in connection with
Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 394 of 2025, subject to the following
conditions:-
i. Petitioner 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 absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner 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
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21511 of 2026(3) dt.22-04-2026
4/4
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.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…