Nitish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13007 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-66 Year-2025 Thana- RAJAON District- Banka ====================================================== Nitish Kumar Son of Ramdeo Yadav Resident of Village -Shikanpur PsRajoun District- Banka ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Brij Nandan Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Rajoun P.S. Case No. 66 of 2025, registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 76, 303(2), 109, 352, 351(2)(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons assaulted the informant, disrobed her and looted ornaments.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is general and omnibus in nature. It is next submitted that due to admitted land dispute between the parties, the petitioner has been implicated in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13007 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026 2/2 this case. The injury sustained by the informant is on the vital part of the body. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that other coaccused has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 19.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 36828 of 2025.

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is named in the FIR and there is specific allegation of assaulting the informant by means of iron rod. It is further submitted that the injury sustained by the informant is grievous in nature and hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer is rejected. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below and pray for regular bail. If any such application is filed, the Court below shall consider and dispose of the same on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T