Patna High Court
Rahul Kumar Sinha @ Ajit SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail, granting it subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Rahul Kumar Sinha, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case (Fatuha PS No.768/2025) involving offences under Sections 109, 308(5) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that a bus carrying logistic department employees was attacked by unknown miscreants on a motorcycle. The petitioner argued that he was never named in the FIR, his name surfaced only on suspicion, no incriminating weapon was found on him, and he has a clean antecedent; the trial court had rejected his bail application. The learned APP opposed the anticipatory bail. The High Court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC read with Section 482(2) B.N.S.S., requiring bail bonds, sureties, presence in court, and provisions for cancellation on breach. The order emphasized that the bail conditions are not to delay acceptance and that any observations made are not binding during trial.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the pending FIR and charges under the B.N.S. and Arms Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of direct involvement in the alleged incident and clean antecedent justify bail.
- Whether the conditions imposed under Section 438(2) CrPC and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S. are appropriate.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- B.N.S.S. — s. 109, 308(5), 3(5), 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Section 482 B.N.S.S.
- Arms Act
- bail conditions
- FIR
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9719 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-768 Year-2025 Thana- FATUA District- Patna
======================================================
Rahul Kumar Sinha @ Ajit Singh S/O Thakur Sitaram Singh Resident of
Village - Majlispur, P.S. - Mahnar, District Vaishali, Bihar. Presently residing
at A/14, Anupam Jyoti Colony, East of Bahadurpur Colony, Sector- 8, B.H.
Colony, P.S. -Sampatchak, Patna, Bihar- 800026.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Shyamendra Dadhich @ Shayamechandra Dadhich S/o-Raghuveer Dadhich
Presently Residing at Ultratech Cement Limited, Union Patliputra Cement
Works, Shahjahanpur, Daniyawan, P.S.- Shahjahanpur, District- Patna,
Bihar-800001.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Arun Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 25-02-2026 Heard Ms. Nivedita Nirvikar, learned senior counsel
assisted by Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.Arun Kumar Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the
State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with
Fatuha P.S. Case No. 768 of 2025 registered for the offences
under Sections 109, 308(5) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and under
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case is to the effect that the
informant has stated that the employees of the logistic
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9719 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
2/4
department were travelling from the factory to Patna in a bus
and some unknown miscreants riding on motorcycle intercepted
the bus and opened firing with intention to kill.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name has transpired
during course of investigation on mere suspicion. It has further
been submitted that the petitioner had also participated in the
investigation process and had appeared before the police and
nothing has transpired towards petitioner during investigation
and it has also been recorded by the learned trial court rejecting
the bail application of the petitioner. It has next been submitted
that no incriminating weapon or article was recovered from the
possession of the petitioner and despite there being no evidence,
still the court has gone to reject the prayer for bail on the ground
that other co-accused have been granted regular bail. It has
lastly been submitted that the petitioner carries clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid submission, facts and
circumstances of the case, let the petitioner above named be
released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender
before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9719 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
3/4
from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is
pending/successor court in connection with Fatuha P.S. Case
No. 768 of 2025 subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with
corresponding Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S. as well as subject to
the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his
close relative.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present
in Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates, or
in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of
the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the
Court concerned.
(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in similar
nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below shall verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9719 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
4/4
concealed his 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.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
allowed.
8. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
aditya/-
U T
Checking your session…