Deodas @ Raj Kumar @ Raja Babu v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15890 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-400 Year-2025 Thana- AKHODHIGOLA District- Rohtas ====================================================== Deodas @ Raj Kumar @ Raja Babu S/o- Ramesh Ram r/v- Nawadih PsAkodhigola Dist- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bipin Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Narsingh Tanti, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 25-03-2026 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with Akodhigola P.S. Case No.400 of 2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 109, 308(2), 308(3), 352, 351(2) of the BNS, 2023 read with section 27 of the Arms Act pending before the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dehri Rohtas.

3. As per the prosecution, the FIR has been lodged against 6 named accused persons and 10 unknown accused persons including the petitioner with allegation that they demanded Rs.5 lac as extortion by the informant. Upon oppose, they assaulted the informant due to which injury took place.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel also submits that petitioner was not present on the place of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15890 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026 2/2 occurrence and his name has been transpired only on suspicion. Counsel further submits that criminal antecedent of the petitioner is not clean as there are two cases pending against him.

5. Counsel further submits that nothing incriminating material has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and due to previous village enmity, the petitioner has been dragged in this case.

6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that criminal antecedent of the petitioner is not clean as there are two cases pending against him and this aspect must be taken into consideration.

7. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

8. However, trial court is directed to consider the regular bail application of the petitioner, if he surrenders within 4 weeks from today and prays for regular bail, then trial court shall pass order on merit without being prejudice of the present order.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Prakashmani/- U T