Nawal Kishor Ram v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29227 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-176 Year-2025 Thana- SIGAUDI District- Patna ====================================================== 1.
Nawal Kishor Ram son of Umesh Ram Resident of Village -Bela PS -Sigori District -Patna 2.
Raj Kishor Ram Son of Umesh Ram Resident of Village -Bela PS -Sigori District -Patna 3.
Chhotu Kumar @ Chhotu Ram Son of Umesh Ram Resident of Village -Bela PS -Sigori District -Patna 4.
Gajendra Ram son of Dinesh Ram Resident of village- Nirakhpur, PsPaliganj, Dist- patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Ashok Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 15-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Sigori P.S. Case No. 176 of 2025 dated 21.12.2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 109, 303(2), 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. As per prosecution case, the accusation against the accused persons including the petitioner is of assaulting the Informant and his family members due to which they sustained
2/4 injuries.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that the allegation of committing overt act causing injury against petitioner no. 1 pertains to the informant's son, namely, Ankit Kumar, whose injury has been found to be simple in nature; petitioner no. 2 is alleged to have caused injury to the informant's wife, namely, Sunita Devi, whose injuries have also been found to be simple in nature; petitioner no. 3 is alleged to have caused an injury upon the head of the informant's daughter, namely, Anusha Kumari, which has been found to be grievous in nature and the petitioner no. 4 is alleged to have caused injury to the informant's daughter, namely, Punam Kumari, on her hand, resulting in swelling, and the said injury has also been found to be simple in nature.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners, having regard to the nature of the injury sustained by the informant's daughter, namely, Anusha Kumari, which is alleged to have been caused by petitioner no. 3 and has been found to be grievous in nature, seeks permission to withdraw the present anticipatory bail application insofar as it relates to petitioner no. 3, namely, Chhotu Kumar @ Chhotu Ram.
6. Permission is accorded.
3/4
7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands dismissed as withdrawn as against the respondent no.3, namely, Chhotu Kumar @ Chhotu Ram.
8. So far as rest of the petitioners are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes that the petitioners will not commit the same offence in future if they are granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of injuries sustained by the Informant's family, which have been found by the doctor to be simple in nature and, as also, taking into account the undertaking given by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners will not commit the same offence in future, let the above named petitioner nos. 1, 2 & 4, be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six 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, First Class, Danapur, Dist. Patna in connection with Sigori P.S. Case No. 176 of 2025, subject to the conditions as
4/4 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, 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