← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./22373/2026bail granted

Bishwajit Singh @ Bholu @ Bishwajeet Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2026-04-07Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22373 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-381 Year-2025 Thana- BHAGWANPUR HAT District- Siwan ====================================================== Bishwajit Singh @ Bholu @ Bishwajeet Singh S/o Late Ashok Singh R/o Village- Mahmda, PO- Mahmda, PS- Bhagwanpur, Hat, District- Siwan ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Saket Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP For the Informant :

Ms. Eashita Raj, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-04-2026 Heard Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Eashita Raj, 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 31.10.2025 in connection with Bhagwanpur Hatt P.S. Case No. 381 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 07.09.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

3. According to prosecution case, this petitioner along with co-accused over a petty land dispute assaulted the informant's father-in-law and brother-in-law. It is further alleged

2/4 that the co-accused fired upon them resulting into their death during treatment.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case due to admitted land dispute between the parties. He further submits that although the petitioner is named in the FIR but from perusal of the FIR it appears that there is no specific allegation of assault or overt act attributed against the petitioner rather the specific allegation of firing is against the co-accused, namely, Amarjeet Singh @ Golu that he has fired upon the father-in-law and brother-in-law of the informant due to which they received injury and during treatment they died. He further submits that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner rather there is general and omnibus allegation against him. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 31.10.2025.

5. The learned counsel for the informant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner carries one criminal antecedent other than the present one but fairly submits that he is on bail in the pending matter. Apart

3/4 from that the petitioner has participated in the present crime in question.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, 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 C.J.M., Siwan in connection with Bhagwanpur Hatt P.S. Case No. 381 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order

4/4 shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T