Rajnish Singh @ Rajanish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23201 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-101 Year-2024 Thana- PATAHI District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.
Rajnish Singh @ Rajanish Kumar Son of Chandrika Singh Resident Of Village - Rampur Manorath, P.S. - Patahi, Dist. - East Champaran. 2.
Pintu Kumar Son of Tej Pratap Singh Resident Of Village - Rampur Manorath, P.S. - Patahi, Dist. - East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Pravin Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Jagdhar Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 06-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Patahi P.S. Case No. 101 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307, 379, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 03.05.2024 at about 07:00 PM, while the informant Nilesh Raj was sitting with his family members at his doorstep, co-accused Tej Pratap Singh along with his four sons, namely Kokil Kumar @ Sujan, Shani Kumar, Mani Kumar, Pintu Kumar (petitioner no. 2) and his brothers Rajnish Singh (petitioner no. 1) and Ranjay Singh
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23201 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026 2/3 allegedly assaulted the informant, his father and brother with lathi and sword with intention to kill them. It is alleged that the informant's father sustained serious head injury and became unconscious. It is further alleged that accused Kokil Kumar snatched a gold chain from the neck of the informant's brother and fled away.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated. They are the persons of clean antecedent. The allegation is general and omnibus. There is land dispute between the parties.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.
6. Both the petitioners have clean antecedent. The allegation against the petitioners is that in prosecution of common objection, they along with other accused persons have assaulted the informant and his father by lathi and sword, which has resulted in simple injury. Under these circumstances, I am inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. Let the petitioners, as named above, in the event of their arrest or surrender within four weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23201 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026 3/3 the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sadar, Motihari, East Champaran in connection with Patahi P.S. Case No. 101 of 2024, subject to the conditions laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and subject to further condition that :- (i) The petitioners shall co-operate in the investigation/ trial.
(ii) The learned Court below would, however, verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent, the Court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, it is expected that the verification process would be done expeditiously without causing any delay. (Alok Kumar Sinha, J) kundan/- U T