← Library
Patna High CourtCR. APP (SJ)/439/2026disposed

Raj Kishor Singh @ Raj Singh @ Unay Singh @ Unayanan Singh @ Unyan Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2026-07-13Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.439 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-451 Year-2025 Thana- BARUN District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Raj Kishor Singh @ Raj Singh @ Unay Singh @ Unayanan Singh @ Unyan Kumar Singh S/o Ranjeet Singh R/o vill - Shivnathpur, P.S. -Barun, Distt.- Aurangabad ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Ramnarayan Ram S/o Jagdish Ram R/o vill- Shivnathpur, P.S. - Barun, Distt.- Aurangabad ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Aman Vishal, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Binay Krishna, Spl.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-07-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This is an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "SC/ST Act") against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide order dated 25.11.2025 in A.B.P. No. 2243 of 2025 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, (SC/ST, NDPS & Children Act), Aurangabad in connection with Barun P.S. Case No. 451 of 2025 registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 303(2), 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the BNS as well as Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that from perusal of the office report dated 31.03.2026, it

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.439 of 2026(4) dt.13-07-2026 2/3 would manifest that the notice was validly served on respondent no. 2 but then respondent no. 2, despite receiving the notice, chooses not to appear and contest.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that appellant has antecedent of four cases but then three cases were instituted from the side of the informant and his family member as pleaded at para 16 of the appeal. It is further submitted that informant alleges that on 21.09.2025, at 11:00 p.m., he was returning home when appellant near Teer Crossing started abusing him by taking caste name and assaulted by kanta causing injury on left side of neck and snatched his locket and on alarm his brother came who also suffered assault.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that it was side of the informant who assaulted the appellant for which Barun P.S. Case No. 450 of 2025 was instituted by the mother of the appellant and the occurrence was also videographed as recorded in the order dated 25.11.2025. It is next submitted that as far as allegation of abuse is alleged, the same is general and omnibus in nature and the injury suffered by the injured has been opined to be simple in nature. It is also submitted that though informant alleges that he was assaulted by kanta a sharp edged weapon but then the injury report records the injury to be simple caused by hard and blunt substance which also belies the

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.439 of 2026(4) dt.13-07-2026 3/3 allegation of assault by a sharp edged weapon. It is submitted that from perusal of the order impugned, it would manifest that the same does not record the prosecution case nor deal with the injury suffered by the appellant as such injury report was called for.

6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant.

7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, let the appellant, abovenamed, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case is pending in connection with the aforesaid case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

8. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal stands allowed.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T