Ramji Prasad v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16356 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-393 Year-2024 Thana- MADHUBAN District- East Champaran ====================================================== Ramji Prasad S/O Late Bhikhari Bhagat Residence of village- Banki Tikam, P.S - Madhuban, Dist- East Champaran at Motihari ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Binay Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Anil Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 19-06-2026 Heard Mr. Binay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 23.09.2024 in connection with Madhuban P.S. Case No. 393 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 329(3), 326(g), 125(b), 118(1), 118(2), 109, 103(1), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 61(2), 124(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Sections 27, 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that as per the written application of the informant-Premchandra Kumar, is that on 21.09.2024 at about 7:00 AM all the accused persons
2/4 named in the F.I.R. including this petitioner and 5-7 unknown persons armed with Lathi-Danda, Iron rod, Lukari and country made pistols attacked on the ancestral house of the informant and also set the house of informant's brother Anil Prasad on fire. It is further alleged that when the informant, his brothers Anil Prasad and Krimchandra Kumar and niece (Bhagini) Sonika Kumari tried to stop them Ramji Prasad (accused-petitioner) threw acid on the body of informant's mother Binda Devi, but she saved herself. The petitioner Ramji Prasad (accusedpetitioner) shoot Sonika Kumari by country made pistol, due to which she sustained gunshot injury on her neck and fell down on the ground.
Co-accused Vivek Kumar fired by country made pistol on Anil Prasad, due to which he sustained gunshot injury on his left hand and co-accused Sujit Kumar started indiscriminate firing with country made pistol. Co-accused Sakaldeo Prasad gave repeated blows of Sword on the informant, due to which he sustained injuries on his head and hand and fell down on the ground and co-accused Shail Devi gave repeated blows of Farsa on the head of informant's sisterin-law Sunita Devi, due to which she sustained injuries on her head.
3/4 referred Sonika Kumari to Sadar Hospital, Motihari for better treatment, but on the way, she died.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the bail petition of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 27.06.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 34218 of 2025 and petitioner is in custody since 23.09.2024 and the trial has not been progressed.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the informant, on the other hand, have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submit that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that he has fired upon the niece of the informant, namely, Sonika Kumari and later on she has died. Apart from that number of witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and postmortem report also supports the allegation as alleged in the FIR. It is next submitted that as far as trial is concerned, the trial is going on and out of nine charge-sheet witnesses, seven witnesses have been examined and only doctor and Investigating Officer has to be examined.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Madhuban P.S. Case No. 393 of 2024 pending
4/4 in the court of learned JM 1st Class, East Champaran at Motihari. However, the learned trial court is directed to expedite and conclude the trial at the earliest.
8. Prayer is refused.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Gaurav Sinha/- U T