Shivam Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11538 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-341 Year-2025 Thana- SHAHPUR PATORI District- Samastipur ====================================================== 1.

Shivam Kumar, aged about 20 years (Male) son of Ranjan Rai @ Ranjan Kumar Rai @ Ranjan Kumar Ray 2.

Kundan Kumar, aged about 25 years (Male) son of Ranjan Rai @ Ranjan Kumar Rai @ Ranjan Kumar Ray 3.

Ranjan Rai @ Ranjan Kumar Rai @ Ranjan Kumar Ray, aged about 46 years (Male) son of Raj Kumar Ray.

4.

Amit Kumar @ Amit Roy, aged about 26 years (Male) son of Rajesh Ray, All are resident of Village - Inayapur Dhamoun, P.S - Patory, District - Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 27-04-2026 Heard Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, learned APP for the State.

2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the present anticipatory bail application, the petitioner no. 2 has been arrested, as such, the present bail application has become infructuous on behalf of petitioner no. 2.

3. Accordingly, the present bail application stands dismissed as withdrawn on behalf of petitioner no. 2.

2/4

4. The petitioners no. 1, 3 and 4 seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Patory P.S. Case No. 341 of 2025, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109(1), 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.

5. As per the allegation made in the FIR, petitioners along with other co-accused persons, with an intention to kill, had allegedly assaulted the informant and his brother, causing injury on the head of the brother of the informant.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submitted that general and omnibus allegation has been levelled against all the accused persons. On these grounds, petitioners seek to be released on pre-arrest bail.

7. Learned APP for the State submitted that direct allegation is against petitioner no. 4, who had assaulted the brother of the informant on his head causing injury, which is vital part of the body and petitioners don't deserve to be released on pre-arrest bail.

8. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, the allegation against the petitioners no. 1 and 3 being general and omnibus, I am of the opinion that

3/4 petitioners no. 1 and 3 have prima facie made out a case to be released on pre-arrest bail.

9. The petitioners no. 1 and 3, above named, are directed to be released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned District Court within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District Court where the case is pending, in connection with Patory P.S. Case No. 341 of 2025, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

10. So far as petitioner no. 4 is concerned, in absence of final injury report, learned District Court is directed call for the injury report of the brother of the informant and verify and if the same is found to be simple in nature, the petitioner no. 4 is directed to be released on pre-arrest bail on the terms and conditions as learned District Court deems fit and proper.

11. In case, the injury is found to be grievous and fatal to the life, the petitioner no. 4 is directed to be taken into custody forthwith.

12. The learned District Court is directed to verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners no. 1, 3 and 4 as stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. If any other

4/4 case is pending against the petitioners no. 1, 3 and 4 as what has been stated in paragraph no. 3, this order will lose its force automatically.

13. Accordingly, the present bail application stands disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J) Niraj/- U T