RAJ KUMAR PRASAD @ RAJ KUMAR SAHUversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5081 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-173 Year-2025 Thana- SINDHIYA District- Samastipur
                 ======================================================
           1.     RAJ KUMAR PRASAD @ RAJ KUMAR SAHU Son of Late Lakshmi
                  Sahu Resident of village - Mahara, Police Station - Singhiya, District -
                  Samastipur.
           2.    Lalit Kumar @ Lalit Sahu Son of Late Ramvinay Sahu Resident of village -
                 Mahara, Police Station - Singhiya, District - Samastipur.
           3.    Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Sahu Son of Late Ramvinay Sahu Resident of village -
                 Mahara, Police Station - Singhiya, District - Samastipur.
           4.    Dayawati Devi @ Daywati Devi Wife of Raj Kumar Sahu Resident of
                 village - Mahara, Police Station - Singhiya, District - Samastipur.

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Nilendu Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Humayou Ahmad Khan, A.P.P
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   04-02-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in

                   connection with Singhiya P.S. Case No. 173 of 2025 lodged on

                   01.10.2025, for the offence punishable under Section 115(2),

                   126(2), 118(2), 191(2), 117(2), 109, 303(2), 351(2) & 352 of the

                   Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

                                3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against

                   six named accused persons including the present petitioners. It

                   has been alleged in the FIR that all the accused persons armed
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5081 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
                                            2/4




          with farsa, iron rod and iron khanti came at the house of the

          informant and started abusing the informant’ father. It has been

          alleged that the petitioner no.1 and other accused person Gopal

          Sahu threw the informant’s father on the ground and thereafter,

          petitioner no.1 has assaulted the informant’ father with iron

          khanti on his head, due to which he sustained injury. The

          snatching of cash is also there in the FIR and thereafter, the

          accused persons threatened the informant’s side and fled away.

                       4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the

          petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence.

          Counsel submits that the petitioners and the informant are co-

          parceners and a land dispute is going on between them. Counsel

          submits that the informant’s side are very aggressive in nature

          and it is due to this reason, an informatory petition has already

          been filed in the year 2018. Subsequently, FIR has also been

          filed which is Annexure-P/2 i.e. Singhiya P.S. Case No. 178 of

          2025. Counsel further submits that with a view to save the skin

          from the said FIR, the present FIR has been lodged in which the

          petitioners have been made accused. Counsel further submits

          that the petitioner nos.2 and 3 have no criminal antecedent,

          whereas, the petitioner nos. 1 and 4 have one criminal

          antecedent lodged by the informant’s side. Counsel submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5081 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
                                            3/4




          whatever be the dispute which is going on between the parties,

          beyond that, there is no dispute between them. Counsel submits

          that the petitioners are ready to fulfill all the conditions

          whatsoever shall be imposed upon them.

                       5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

          bail of the petitioners and submits that from the allegation made

          in the FIR, it become crystal clear that there is specific

          allegation of assault against petitioner no.1. But, he fairly

          submits that there is general and omnibus allegation against

          petitioner nos. 2, 3 and 4.

                       6. As such, in the present facts and circumstances of

          this case as well as considering the allegation made in the FIR,

          let the petitioner no.2 namely, Lalit Kumar @ Lalit Sahu,

          petitioner no.3 namely, Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Sahu and

          petitioner no.4 namely, Dayawati Devi @ Daywati Devi be

          released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender

          before the Trial Court within a period of 4 weeks from today, on

          furnishing bail bond of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand)

          each as mentioned in Section 2(1)(d) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 to

          the satisfaction of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rosera,

          Samastipur, in connection with Singhiya P.S. Case No. 173 of

          2025, subject to the conditions as laid down U/s 482(2) of the
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5081 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
                                                         4/4




                       B.N.S.S., 2023.

                                    7. So far as petitioner no. 1 namely, Raj Kumar Prasad

                       @ Raj Kumar Sahu is concerned, this Court is not inclined to

                       grant bail to him. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of

                       the petitioner no.1 is hereby rejected. However, seeing the

                       enmity between the parties, liberty is hereby granted to

                       petitioner no.1 that if he surrenders before the concerned Trial

                       Court within a period of 4 weeks from today, then in that case,

                       the Trial Court is directed to pass order on his surrender-cum-

                       bail application on the same day, without being prejudice that

                       the anticipatory bail of the petitioner no. 1 has been rejected by

                       this Court and the Trial Court shall pass order on the merit of

                       this case.



                                                                     (Dr. Anshuman, J)
Divyansh/-

U      T