Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Kushwaha v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35060 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-211 Year-2025 Thana- SASARAM NAGAR District- Rohtas ====================================================== Jitendra Kumar @ Jitendra Kushwaha S/O Ram Ayodhaya Singh Resident of village- Beda, P.S.- Sasaram (M), District- Rohtas ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shashi Kant For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Binod Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 03-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sasaram (T) P.S. Case No. 211 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 190, 121(1), 115(2), 132, 221 of BNS.

3. As per prosecution case, on 14.03.2025 the informant along with other police official was on patrolling duty and during the patrolling duty, he got information that two parties were quarreling in Shershah Hotel, Chandrawanshi Nagar. On the said information, the informant reached at Chandrawanshi Nagar near Shershah Hotel and saw that some people were beating two boys. The informant went there and tried to pacify the quarrel but all went in vain. It is further

2/4 alleged that during course of pacifying the quarrel, when the informant and other police official apprehended some boys and began to bring them in police station from the police jeep, petitioner, co-accused Vikky Kumar and 20-25 unknown persons started protesting and used unparliamentary language. It is further alleged that petitioner along with others having formed an unlawful assembly stopped the government vehicle and got apprehended boys escaped from the clutches of the police and they also took away key of government vehicle.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged in the FIR and he has falsely been implicated in this case due to village politics. Learned counsel further submits that prosecution case is false and concocted. The alleged occurrence is said to have taken place at the occasion of Holi festival and the villagers were making hulla during Holi and police came there and lodged this false case to put pressure on the villagers. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner rather the same is general and omnibus in nature. No one has sustained any injury in the alleged occurrence and during course of investigation, I.O. could not collect any evidence against the petitioner. Petitioner bears criminal antecedent of two cases in

3/4 which he is on bail. It has been orally submitted that petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove his innocence.

5. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that name of petitioner finds place in the FIR and he cannot escape from the liability of allegation made in the prosecution story.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, argument advanced on behalf of both sides and also taking into consideration the material available on record, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas in connection with Sasaram (T) P.S. Case No. 211 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S.

7. The application stands allowed.

8. However, it is made clear that if the investigating Officer of the case files an application before the learned trial court bringing to its notice that petitioner despite giving

4/4 assurance to this Court is not co-operating in the investigation, in that event, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.

9. If petitioner is found indulge in similar nature of offence, the concerned court is at liberty to cancel his bail bonds.

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J) shahzad/- U T