Raj Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30510 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-453 Year-2025 Thana- NASRIGANJ District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1.
Raj Kumar Singh S/o Late Bhagwat Singh Resident of Village- Lala Atimi, PS- Nasariganj, District- Rohtas 2.
Moti Lal Singh @ Motilal Yadav S/o Raj Kumar Singh Resident of VillageLala Atimi, PS- Nasariganj, District- Rohtas 3.
Richu Singh S/o Raj Kumar Singh Resident of Village- Lala Atimi, PSNasariganj, District- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Binod Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 05-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioners seeks bail in connection with Nasariganj P.S. Case No. 453 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103, 61(2) of BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution story, in brief, is that Informant Sima Kumari has given a written application to me Officer-In-charge of Nasariganj Police Station that she along with her husband Arbind Kumar Singh going for agriculture work in the market through front of my village. In the Market
2/4 near my field dispute was going on between two parties. It is further stated that when we reached there then saw that Binay Singh, aged about 44 years, Son of Late Bhudeo Singh and others twenty named accused persons along with few female were armed with Lathi, danda and some unknown persons were also present there Act, lodged on the basis of written application of informant namely Sima Kumari.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of one case and petitioner nos. 2 and 3 have clean antecedent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. It is next submitted that although the petitioners are named in the FIR but from perusal of the FIR it appears that there is no allegation of assault or overt act against any of the petitioners rather the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. He further submits that similarly situated, co-accused persons, namely, Prem Prakash @ Supadi and four others have been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.04.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 27164 of 2026 and other co-accused persons, namely, Indu Devi and three other co-accused persons have been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.03.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 15338 of 2026. It is next
3/4 submitted that police after investigation has submitted chargesheet and petitioner no. 1 is in custody since 28.01.2026 and petitioner nos. 2 and 3 are in custody since 28.12.2025.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioners, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM, Bikramganj (Rohtas) in connection with Nasariganj P.S. Case No. 453 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:- i. Petitioners 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 their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioners 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 petitioners and in case at
4/4 any stage 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, 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) Gaurav Sinha/- U T