Dharmraj @ Bhola @ Dharmraj Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12599 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-511 Year-2025 Thana- DINARA District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1.
Dharmraj @ Bhola @ Dharmraj Singh S/O Ram Krishna Singh R/O Village - Ben Sagar, P.O.- Medanipur, P.S.- Dinara, District - Rohtas 2.
Harishankar Kumar @ Harishankar @ Harishankar Singh S/O Ramakant Singh R/O Village - Ben Sagar, P.O.- Medanipur, P.S.- Dinara, District - Rohtas 3.
Upendra Kumar @ Upendra Singh S/O Ramakant Singh R/O Village - Ben Sagar, P.O.- Medanipur, P.S.- Dinara, District - Rohtas 4.
Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Singh @ Bhulan S/O Radha Krishna Singh R/O Village - Ben Sagar, P.O.- Medanipur, P.S.- Dinara, District - Rohtas 5.
Radha Krishna Singh @ Radhe Kishun Singh S/O Ram Prasad Singh R/O Village - Ben Sagar, P.O.- Medanipur, P.S.- Dinara, District - Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Shubham Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Yogendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-03-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Dinara P.S. Case No.511 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2) 115(2), 74, 109, 351(2), 352, 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners at the outset seeks permission to withdraw the anticipatory bail application with respect to petitioner no.5, namely, Radha Krishna Singh @
2/4 Radhe Kishun Singh, who was arrested during pendency of the instant anticipatory bail application.
4. Permission is accorded.
5. It is next submitted that submits that petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that her mother was working in the field and her younger sister was alone in the house, when accused persons including the petitioners entered her house and started acting inappropriately with her sister by putting her under fear, on alarm, her mother came, when Dharmraj and Hari Shankar assaulted her by rod, causing injury on head, chest and neck, thereafter her sister started raising an alarm, when her brothers Pappu, Guddu and Prince came but accused persons assaulted them by rod and knife causing injury to Pappu on head and knife injury on finger, further Hari Shankar assaulted Guddu by rod causing injury on head and temple and also assaulted Prince by rod causing injury on back and even assaulted her father.
6. Learned counsel submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that on account of dispute relating to land, the informant falsely implicated the petitioners in the instant case. It is also submitted that from side of the petitioners, Dinara P.S.
3/4 Case No.499 of 2025 has been instituted as such the instant FIR is counter blast.
7. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that informant specifically alleges that when her younger sister was alone in the house, the accused persons came and started acting inappropriately with her and when her mother on alarm came, she was assaulted. It is further submitted that when brothers of the informant came, they were also assaulted by the accused persons by rod and knife. It is further submitted that knife is a dangerous weapon, on which, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the injury suffered by the injured has been opined to be simple in nature, except one injury of the father of the informant, which has been opined to be grievous, on which, the learned APP reiterates and submits that allegation is of assaulting the side of the informant by rod and knife, on account of which, the father of the informant received grievous injury. It is further submitted that investigation in the case is still continuing.
8. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4/4
9. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioners is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T