Golu Kumar @ Golu @ Raushan Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23719 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-187 Year-2025 Thana- Gaura P.S. District- Saran ====================================================== 1.
Golu Kumar @ Golu @ Raushan Singh Son of Munna Singh R/o Village - Rampur(Khoram), P.S. - Gaura, Distt. - Saran at Chapra. 2.
Aditya Kumar Singh @ Aditya Singh Son of Rajesh Singh R/o Village - Rampur(Khoram), P.S. - Gaura, Distt. - Saran at Chapra. 3.
Arun Kumar Singh @ Arjun Singh @ Arjan Singh Son of Ramakant Singh @ Alagu Singh R/o Village - Rampur(Khoram), P.S. - Gaura, Distt. - Saran at Chapra.
4.
Shambhu Singh @ Kapil Singh Son of Late Dipnarayan Singh R/o Village - Rampur(Khoram), P.S. - Gaura, Distt. - Saran at Chapra. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Udai Shankar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Abhay Kumar Roy, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 16-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State as also counsel for the Informant, who has appeared suo motu in this case.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Gaura P.S. Case No. 187 of 2025 dated 11.09.2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 303(2), 352 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. As per prosecution case, on 10.09.2025 at 7:30 P.M., the accused, armed with lathi, danda and farsa, assaulted the
2/4 informant and injured him with a farsa blow on the head. His family members who intervened were also assaulted and sustained injuries. It is also alleged that the accused persons also took away one cow and one buffalo.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. He next submits that the specific allegation of overt act is against the co-accused Rajesh Singh, who is not a petitioner before this Court, while the allegations against the petitioners are general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted that the injury caused to the informant has been attributed to the co-accused Rajesh Singh, which is grievous in nature, while the other injuries are simple in nature. There is a case and counter-case between the parties. It is next submitted that, in the alleged occurrence, the petitioners have also sustained injuries, and their injury reports are being appended with this application as Annexure-4 series.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State and the Informant have opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there is case and counter case between
3/4 the parties and both the parties have sustained injuries in the alleged occurrence as also there being no specific allegation of overt act against the petitioners rather the allegation of specific overt act is against the co-accused Rajesh Singh, let the above named petitioners, be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chapra, Saran in connection with Gaura P.S. Case No. 187 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. as well as the 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 their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
4/4 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) rishi/- U T