← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./23682/2025bail granted

Rohit Sinha v. The State Of Bihar

2025-07-23Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23682 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-391 Year-2024 Thana- CIVIL LINE District- Gaya ====================================================== Rohit Sinha S/o Vinay Krishna Sinha R/o Village- Dhanama Tekuna Farm, P.S.- Bodh Gaya, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shailesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Brajendra Nath Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 23-07-2025 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Civil Lines P.S. Case No. 391 of 2024 for the offence under sections 191(2), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351 (2), 351 (3), 109 and 303(2) of the B.N.S. lodged on 21.07.2024 by the informant, Sohrab Ahmad.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that he has done the lighting work at Bodhi Palace belonging to Raj Sinha @ Golu. Further, the amount that was to be paid to him was Rs. 70,000/- out of which only 18,000/- was paid. When he went to the resort near Red Cross, Gandhi Maidan and demanded money, allegation is that Raj Sinha @ Golu alongwith named accused including this petitioner thrashed him causing injury on his head. The allegation of damaging the

2/4 mobile and taking away the amount is also there which led to the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main role is attributed to Raj Sinha @ Golu in the FIR, he being the friend has been dragged in the entire episode, has no criminal antecedent and the injury has been found to be simple in nature. Further, the submission is that without accepting the allegation and/or the outcome of the present petition in view of the fact that the informant's side has alleged injuries, the petitioner on its own would like to contribute Rs. 10,000/- towards the medical assistance through Demand Draft issued by the local State Bank of India branch to be submitted before the 'NAZARAT' of concerned Court to be handed over to the informant after checking the credentials.

5. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that all of them assaulted the poor labour who has done the job in the resort of Raj Sinha.

6. Taking into account the submissions of the parties as also that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and main role has been attributed to Raj Sinha and injury has been found to be simple in nature, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail with conditions

3/4 subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as undertaken by the learned counsel for the petitioner to be paid by Demand Draft of local State Bank of India to be submitted to the Trial Court to be handed over to the informant.

7. Let the petitioner be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-1, Gaya in connection with Civil Lines P.S. Case No. 391 of 2024 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

(i) one of the bailor should be the family member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;

(ii) the petitioner 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 his bail bond by the Trial Court itself;

(iii) the petitioner shall appear before the concerned police station every fortnight for next six months to mark his attendance;

4/4 (iv) the petitioner shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;

(v) the petitioner shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds. (Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U T