Patna High Court
Rahul KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to petitioner Rahul Kumar, granted to petitioner Kanhai Prajapati, and the application of petitioner Sunil Prajapati was withdrawn.
Summary
The petitioners Rahul Kumar, Sunil Prajapati and Kanhai Prajapati applied for anticipatory bail in a case alleging assault and robbery under several sections of the B.N.S. Sunil Prajapati was already arrested, so his application was withdrawn. The State opposed bail, citing specific accusations and medical evidence of grievous injuries caused by Rahul Kumar. The court found the allegations against Rahul Kumar specific and serious, denying him anticipatory bail, while deeming the accusations against Kanhai Prajapati general and noting his clean record, thereby granting him anticipatory bail with a bail bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties. The application was disposed of with these directions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner Rahul Kumar under the applicable provisions.
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner Kanhai Prajapati given the nature of the accusations.
- Whether the anticipatory bail application of petitioner Sunil Prajapati can be withdrawn due to his arrest.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- bail bond
- criminal procedure
- assault
- false implication
- Section 482
- Section 438
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.957 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-252 Year-2025 Thana- JAMHOR District- Aurangabad
======================================================
1. Rahul Kumar S/O Sunil Prajapati @ Gautam Kumar Resident of Village-
Chichanmi, P.S- Jamhore, District- Aurangabad
2. Sunil Prajapati @ Gautam Kumar Son of Late Radha Mohan Prajapati
Resident of Village- Chichanmi, P.S- Jamhore, District- Aurangabad
3. Kanhai Prajapati Son of Dukhdewan Prajapati Resident of Village-
Chichanmi, P.S- Jamhore, District- Aurangabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Binod Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 24-03-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this anticipatory
bail application with regard to Petitioner No. 2, namely Sunil
Prajapati @ Gautam Kumar, as during pendency of this case,
Petitioner No. 2 has already been arrested and the same has
become infructuous.
3. Permission, as prayed for, is accorded.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.957 of 2026(4) dt.24-03-2026
2/4
4. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application with
regard to Petitioner No. 2 stands dismissed as withdrawn.
5. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 apprehend their arrest in a
case registered for the offence punishable under Sections
191(2), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109 and 303(2) of the
B.N.S..
6. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that all the
F.I.R. named accused persons, including these petitioners,
abused and assaulted son of informant and snatched his gold
chain on the point of pistol. It is further alleged that when the
informant, along with his wife, went to the house of the accused
persons to complain about the incident, they were also brutally
assaulted.
7. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and
have committed no offence. As a matter of fact, both parties are
co-villagers and petitioners have falsely been implicated in this
case with ulterior motive. Allegation of assault is general and
omnibus and no specific accusation of overt act has been alleged
against these petitioners. Petitioners claim clean antecedents.
8. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.957 of 2026(4) dt.24-03-2026
3/4
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioners and submitted that petitioners are named in the
F.I.R. with specific accusation that they assaulted informant, his
wife and his son. It is further submitted that doctor has found
the injuries, caused by Petitioner No. 1, grievous in nature.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, specific and direct nature of accusation and nature of
injuries allegedly caused by Petitioner No. 1, the prayer for
grant of anticipatory bail to Petitioner No. 1 is rejected.
10. So far as Petitioner No. 3 is concerned,
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, general and
omnibus nature of accusation and clean antecedents of the
petitioners, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to Petitioner
No. 3 is allowed.
11. Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender
within a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named
Petitioner No. 3 be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of
Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M. VIII, Aurangabad in
connection with Jamhore P.S. Case No. 252 of 2025, subject to
condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S..
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.957 of 2026(4) dt.24-03-2026
4/4
12. With the aforesaid directions, this application
stands disposed of.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…