Patna High CourtCR. MISC./25537/2026bail rejected

Prakash Ram @ Om Prakash Ram v. The State Of Bihar

2026-07-20Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25537 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-731 Year-2025 Thana- RAMNAGAR District- West Champaran ====================================================== Prakash Ram @ Om Prakash Ram S/O Dhanush Dhari Ram R/O VillageDhokaraha, PS_ Ramnagar, Distt-West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Milind Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Syed Mojibur Rahman, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Awnish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Vikash Kr. Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 20-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. Learned counsel for the informant appeared suo-moto in this case.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to an inadvertent mistake, wrong date of custody has been stated in para 4 of the present bail application. As such, he seeks permission to correct the same in course of the day.

3. Permission, as prayed for, is granted.

4. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Ramnagar P.S. Case No. 731 of 2025, lodged on 16.12.2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 352, 351(2) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the Court of Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bagaha, West Champaran.

5. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25537 of 2026(4) dt.20-07-2026 2/3 3 named accused persons including the present petitioner. The allegation has been made against the petitioner and others that they have assaulted the informant's father on the ground of dayan and thereafter, brutally assaulted the informant's father by forcefully banged his head three to four times on the wall of the house, due to which, the informant's father sustained head injury and fell down on the ground and become unconscious. Thereafter, the informant's father died during course of treatment.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he is ready to fulfill all the conditions whatsoever shall be imposed upon him. Counsel submits that vide order dated 18.04.2026, case diary along with post-mortem report have been called for. He submits that in the case diary, the injury has been caused only due to the reason that the informant's father fell down on the road. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 17.12.2025.

7. Learned counsel for the informant who appeared suo-moto in this case, vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that case diary along with post-mortem report have been called for in this case. He submits that there is a specific allegation that head injury to the informant's father has been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25537 of 2026(4) dt.20-07-2026 3/3 caused due to the action of petitioner and other accused person and this is the cause of death.

8. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that in the inquest report, the injury on the back side of the head is apparent. The cause of death is injury in the head. He also submits that as per the postmortem report also, it has come that the injury has been caused on the occipital bone which is fractured and the hematoma present in occipital area of size 2"x2" and the cause of death is also due to concussion, haemorrhage and shock (head injury).

9. Upon hearing the parties and upon perusal of the post-mortem report, it transpires that the said head injury to the informant's father was ante-mortem injury and the specific allegation against the petitioner is that he along with his son namely, Suraj Ram have caused the said ante-mortem injury. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

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