Rajnish Kumar Singh @ Rajneesh Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14356 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-114 Year-2025 Thana- Patour District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Rajnish Kumar Singh @ Rajneesh Kumar Singh S/o Jagdeo Singh @ Jagdeo Prasad Singh R/o Village - Lagma, P.S - Singhiya, District - Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rohit Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nityanand ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 26-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Pator P.S. Case No.114 of 2025, F.I.R dated 01.11.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 303(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. According to prosecution case, on 29.10.2025 at about 6:00 P.M., while the informant was returning home from Usma Math market, he was allegedly intercepted by accused Rajnish Kumar Singh and others travelling in a four-wheeler (BR33AT7212). The accused allegedly surrounded the informant, pointed pistols at him, and forced him out of his car. It is alleged that Rajnish Kumar Singh assaulted him with an iron rod on his leg, Abhishek Kumar Singh punched him and

2/4 threw a chemical substance into his eyes causing burning, and other accused restrained him. The accused allegedly snatched gold and silver ornaments worth Rs.1,50,000 and also took Rs.13,000 kept in the car. The informant's son and other occupants were allegedly forced out at gunpoint and assaulted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is case and counter case and the allegation against this petitioner is of having assaulted the informant on his left leg but the injuries are simple in nature and the petitioner submits that for ulterior reasons, he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has further been submitted that the informant is a neighbor of matrimonial house of the petitioner's daughter and the informant had a dispute with the father-in-law of the petitioner's daughter and therefore, in order to pressurize the father-in-law of the petitioner's daughter, the instant case is said to have been filed. Though, the case is registered under the Arms Act, but there is no seizure of the same. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner has one criminal antecedent but he is on bail in the said case.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail application.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

3/4 that there is case and counter case and the allegation against this petitioner is of having assaulted the informant on his left leg but the injuries are simple in nature. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, 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 the learned A.C.J.M.-IX, Samastipur, in connection with Pator P.S. Case No.114 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- (i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document/personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide; (ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;

4/4 (iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;

(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds. (Ajit Kumar, J) sharun/- U T