Patna High CourtCR. MISC./9053/2026bail granted

Naveen Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-06-19Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9053 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-203 Year-2025 Thana- RAMPUR HARI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Naveen Kumar S/o Nagendra Rai R/o Village - Sahila Balli, P.S - Rampur Hari, District - Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Uday Prakash Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Pushpa Sinha.1, APP For the Informant : Mr. Ranjeet Ranjan, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 19-06-2026 Heard Mr.Uday Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ranjeet Ranjan, learned counsel for the informant and Ms.Pushpa Sinha.1, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 29.10.2025 in connection with Rampurhari P.S. Case No. 203 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 27.10.2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 109, 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 25(1-b)a,27 of Arms Act and subsequently vide order dated 30.10.2025 Section 103(1) of the BNS.

3. According to prosecution case, petitioner and other co-accused persons are alleged to have assaulted the informant and his family members. The specific allegation against the co-

2/4 accused person, namely, Deepak Kumar is of assaulting the brother of the informant by means of iron rod and lathi due to which he got injured.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it appears from the FIR that initially the petitioner was not named in the FIR. The name of the petitioner has been transpired during investigation on the re-statement of the informant which was recorded in paragraph-8 of the case diary and informant has stated that co-accused person, namely, Dipak Kumar and petitioner have assaulted to the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the postmortem report does not support the allegation as alleged in the FIR, apart from that, for the same set of allegation, co-accused person, namely, Deepak Kumar has been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 28.01.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No.5156 of 2026 and the police, after investigation, submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 29.10.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State have opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has participated in the present crime in question and informant has stated that the petitioner has also assaulted to the deceased alongwith other co-accused

3/4 persons, apart from that, the petitioner carries one more case other than the present one, as mentioned in para-2 of the supplementary affidavit.

6. Considering the aforesaid fact and similarly situated co-accused person has been granted 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 learned court below where the case is pending in connection with Rampurhari P.S. Case No. 203 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 his/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

4/4 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) Nitesh/- U T