Patna High CourtCR. MISC./26542/2025bail granted

Aniket Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2025-07-16Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26542 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-494 Year-2024 Thana- MUFFASIL District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Aniket Kumar Son of Ram Lekha Yadav @ Ram Rekha Yadav Resident of Village - Badri Bigha, P.S.- Muffasil, District - Aurangabad, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :

Ms. Anita Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 16-07-2025 Heard Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Anita Kumari, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Aurangabad (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 494 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 25.12.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 74, 324(4), 333, 109(1), 303(2), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

3. According to prosecution case, all the FIR named accused persons along with some unknown persons entered into the house of the informant armed with deadly weapons. They assaulted the informant and her family members and also stolen some valuable articles from her house.

2/4

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. It has been mentioned in the FIR that son of Ram Rekha Yadav @ Ram Lekha Yadav, who happens to be the petitioner. It is further submitted that from a bare perusal of the FIR, it appears that there is no specific allegation of any assault or overt act attributed against the petitioner rather there is general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons including this petitioner and similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Sanjay Yadav @ Sanjay Kumar and Pintu Kumar @ T.T. have been granted privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 26.06.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 39611 of 2025.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, clean antecedent of the petitioner, no specific allegation of any assault or overt act has been attributed against the petitioner and similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Sanjay Yadav @ Sanjay Kumar and Pintu Kumar @ T.T. have

3/4 been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, Bihar in connection with Aurangabad (Muffasil) P.S. Case No. 494 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/ 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023 and with other 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

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

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