Patna High CourtCR. MISC./2618/2026allowed

Prashant Pathak v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-23Mr. Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1272 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-852 Year-2025 Thana- SASARAM NAGAR District- Rohtas ====================================================== Anish Kumar @ Milki S/O Satendra Narayan Singh @ Satendar Singh @ Satyendra Narayan Singh R/O Village- Ahirouli, P.S- Sheoshagar, Distt.- Rohtas. A/P resident of Geetaghat Colony Ward no. 10, P.S- Sasaram, Dist.- Rohtas.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 2618 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-852 Year-2025 Thana- SASARAM NAGAR District- Rohtas ====================================================== Prashant Pathak S/O Dineshwar Kumar Pathak Resident of village - Bhavadih, P.S.- Nokha, District- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 3020 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-852 Year-2025 Thana- SASARAM NAGAR District- Rohtas ====================================================== Ramanshu Kumar Singh S/O Ravi Nandan Singh Residnet of villageKumhau, P.S.- Sheosagar , District- Rohtas at Sasaram ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 1272 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anuj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 2618 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajani Kant Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Rina Sinha, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 3020 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajani Kant Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anant Kumar 1, APP

2/4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 23-02-2026 Heard learned Advocates for the petitioners and learned A.P.Ps. for the State.

2. The petitioners seek bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 118(2), 109(1), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that police received information about two groups indulging in firing. The informant with her police party reached the spot and found two cars parked there. Some spent cartridges and pellets were found near the car as well as in one of the vehicles. The police on inquiry came to know about the petitioners who were involved along with other co-accused persons in the aforesaid occurrence.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case merely on suspicion. No specific overt act is alleged against the petitioners. Further he submits that petitioner Ramanshu Kumar Singh was himself injured in this case. There is no independent witness to support the prosecution case. No incriminating material has been recovered from the possession of the petitioners. Test Identification Parade has not been

3/4 conducted. The charge-sheet has already been submitted after completion of investigation. He also submits that similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Ankush Kumar and Ravi Kumar have already been granted regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide common order dated 28.01.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 3413 of 2026 and another tagged case. Petitioner Anish Kumar @ Milki is in custody since 02.11.2025 having no criminal antecedent, petitioner Prashant Pathak is in custody since 05.11.2025 having no criminal antecedent and petitioner Ramanshu Kumar Singh is in custody since 02.11.2025 having two criminal antecedents in which, he is on bail. Petitioners undertake to co-operate in the trial. There is no chance of their absconding or tampering with the evidence.

5. Learned A.P.Ps. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the prayer for bail.

6. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the fact that charge-sheet has been submitted and similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted bail, let the above named petitioners be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram,

4/4 Rohtas in connection with Sasaram (T) P.S. Case No. 852 of 2025 with following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioners.

(ii) The petitioners will remain present on each and every date fixed by the court concerned, if so required by the learned trial Court.

(iii) In case of non-appearance of the petitioners on single date or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bonds of the petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) utkarsh/- U T