Patna High Court
Bablu Singh @ Shubodh Kumar SinghversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The anticipatory bail application was rejected.
Summary
The petitioners, Bablu Singh and Rajiv Ranjan Singh, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged by informant Mukesh Singh alleging they assaulted him over a dispute involving soil removal from a JCB. The FIR charged them under several provisions of the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita (2023) corresponding to IPC sections 339, 323, 324, 325, 307, 379, 504, 506, 34 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, alleging assault with a shovel, pistol‑butt injuries and an attempted firing. The informant presented medical reports showing grievous injuries to his scalp, eye and finger, while the petitioners contended that the FIR was exaggerated, no firing occurred and the injuries were simple. The court examined the seriousness of the allegations, the injury reports and the submissions of both sides. Concluding that the allegations were grave, the court rejected the petitioners’ anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the serious nature of the alleged offences.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 118, 126, 303(2), 3(5), 351(3), 352
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 323, 324, 325, 339, 34, 379, 504, 506
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- assault
- grievous hurt
- IPC
- Arms Act
- bail
- FIR
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74597 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-217 Year-2024 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Vaishali
======================================================
1. Bablu Singh @ Shubodh Kumar Singh S/O Late Randhir Singh R/O Vill.-
Fatehpur, P.S.- Raghopur, Dist.- Vaishali
2. Rajiv Ranjan Singh @ Ranjan Singh S/O Late Randhir Singh R/O Vill.-
Fatehpur, P.S.- Raghopur, Dist.- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar Patna
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms.Eashita Raj, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajendra Prasad Nat, APP
For the Informant : Ms. Shashi Priya, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 20-02-2026 Heard Ms. Eashita Raj, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Ms. Shashi Priya, learned counsel for the
informant beside the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in
connection with Raghopur P.S. Case No. 217 of 2024 instituted
under Sections 126, 115(2), 118, 117(2), 109, 303(2), 352,
351(3), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023
(corresponding to section 339, 323, 324, 325, 307, 379, 504,
506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act
lodged on 01.08.2024 by the informant, Mukesh Singh.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that both the petitioners alongwith the anti-social elements used
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74597 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
2/3
to cut soil from the JCB of the informant’s land. This was
repeatedly objected by the informant but always got the abuse.
In one such incident, he raised the matter with the local
residents when the petitioner no.1 called him to his home on
15.07.2024.
4. When he reached the place, allegation is that the
accused persons were present and on the instruction of
petitioner no.01, the assault took place which included the
petitioner no.2 and the sons of petitioner no.1. While the
petitioner no.1 used Shovel which hit the head of the informant,
the petitioner no.2 opened fire but the cartridge got stuck. He,
however, used his pistol butt to assault on the eyes causing
injuries. This followed the FIR.
5. In this case, a coordinate bench had called for the
case diary on 19.11.2025 which is on record. There are
preliminary and final injury reports of the Primary Health
Centre, Raghopur, Vaishali which shows that wound of the scalp
have been found to be grievous in nature beside other injuries
below the left eye and fifth finger of the right hand.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that
exaggerated FIR is there, all the family members have been
roped in, fact remains that though allegation of opening fire is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74597 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026
3/3
there, no firing took place. Further, some of the injuries have
been found to be simple in nature and the allegation is omnibus
nature.
7. Learned counsel for the informant on the other
hand opposes the prayer and with the help of counter affidavit
submits that the informant remained in hospital for twenty days
and the injuries that he has received is fully supported by the
final injury provided by the government hospital.
8. Considering the submissions of the parties as also
the materials that are on record, allegation is/are grave against
the two petitioners, in that background, it would be appropriate
that they seek bail.
9. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U T
Checking your session…