Vipin Ram v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31323 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-27 Year-2025 Thana- KOCHAS District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1.
Vipin Ram son of Jairam Ram Resident of Bahornapur P.S -Kochas, DistRohtas at Sasaram 2.
Duthanath Ram Son of Jairam Ram Resident of Bahornapur P.S -Kochas, Dist- Rohtas at Sasaram 3.
Ramu Ram son of Chandrama Ram Resident of Bahornapur P.S -Kochas, Dist- Rohtas at Sasaram 4.
Raghubar Ram son of Sukhpal Ram Resident of Bahornapur P.S -Kochas, Dist- Rohtas at Sasaram 5.
Radheshyam Ram son of Sukhpal Ram Resident of Bahornapur P.S -Kochas, Dist- Rohtas at Sasaram 6.
Lakshman Ram Son of sukhpal Ram Resident of Bahornapur P.S -Kochas, Dist- Rohtas at Sasaram ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ajeet Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 15-05-2025 Heard Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ajeet Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Kochas P.S. Case No. 27 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 25.01.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 329(4), 352, 303(2), 109(1) and 117(2) of the B.N.S.
2/4
3. According to prosecution case, the petitioners have assaulted on the head of the informant's wife when she was going to bring straw, which was kept in farmyard.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have clean antecedent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that there is case and counter case. He further submits that although the petitioners are named in the F.I.R. but it appears from the perusal of the F.I.R. that the there is no specific allegation of any assault or overt act against these petitioners rather there is general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons including these petitioners. He further submits that from perusal of the F.I.R it appears that due to some petty dispute, the present occurrence has been taken place.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, the petitioners have clean antecedent and there is no specific allegation of any assault or overt act against these petitioners rather there is general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons including these petitioners, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a
3/4 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) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram, in connection with .Kochas P.S. Case No. 27 of 2025 , subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/482(2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 and with other 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 tamper 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 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
4/4 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) Jyoti Kumari/- U T