Patna High CourtCR. MISC./3798/2026bail granted

Niranjan Gupta @ Niranjan Kumar @ Ritesh Kumar Gupta v. The State Of Bihar

2026-01-30Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3798 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-144 Year-2025 Thana- SURYAPURA District- Rohtas ====================================================== Niranjan Gupta @ Niranjan Kumar @ Ritesh Kumar Gupta Son of Anil Sah @ Anil Kumar Gupta Resident of Village - Dhodhandih, Police Station - Surajpura, District - Rohtas.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Surendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 30-01-2026 Heard Mr. Raghunandan Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Surendra Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 03.11.2025 in connection with Suryapura P.S. Case No. 144 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 01.05.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 351(2), 352 of the BNS, 2023.

3. According to prosecution case, the petitioner along with other accused persons are said to have assaulted the informant and his family members due to which they became injured.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that although the petitioner is named in the FIR but it appears from the FIR itself that due to some petty dispute, the present

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3798 of 2026(2) dt.30-01-2026 2/3 occurrence has taken place, there is case and counter case and both sides have received injuries and there was no intention to kill anyone. The specific allegation against the petitioner as alleged in the FIR is that he has assaulted to one Manish Kumar by means of lathi on his head and he has received the injury. Other accused persons have assaulted the other family members of the informant and similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Ramesh Sah @ Rameshwar Sah and others have been granted privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 09.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 61963 of 2025. He further submits that the police after investigation, submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 03.11.2025.

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also the fact that the petitioner has clean antecedent, there is case and counter case between the parties and other co-accused persons have been granted privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3798 of 2026(2) dt.30-01-2026 3/3 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1, Bikramganj, Rohtas in connection with Suryapura P.S. Case No. 144 of 2025, with the following conditions:

i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has 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.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Ranjeet/- U T