Chhotu Singh @ Abhijeet Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39947 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-144 Year-2022 Thana- RAHIKA District- Madhubani ====================================================== 1.
Chhotu Singh @ Abhijeet Singh Son of Anil Kumar Singh R/o - Kakraul, P.S. - Rahika, District - Madhubani.
2.
Pinki Singh Wife of Anil Kumar Singh R/o - Kakraul, P.S. - Rahika, District - Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ashok Kumar @ Ashok Karn, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 28-07-2026 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Rahika P.S. Case No.144 of 2022, dated 24.07.2022, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 447, 384, 386, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the FIR, the informant, along with his cosharers, reached their ancestral land after receiving information that about 200-300 persons attempting to encroach upon it by constructing huts. When they objected, the accused persons,
2/4 armed with lathis and other deadly weapons, allegedly abused and assaulted them, demanded Rs. 10 lakh ransom and chased them. It is further alleged that when the police arrived, the accused and assaulted the police personnel, causing injuries. The petitioners are among the 40 named accused persons alleged to have participated in the occurrence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that there are altogether 40 named accused persons and about 200 unknown persons arrayed as accused in the case. Although the petitioners are FIRnamed accused, there is no specific allegation against them. Learned counsel submits that the allegation regarding demand of ransom is general and omnibus in nature. It is further submitted that, on the basis of the same and similar allegations, two FIRs have been instituted, one being the present case and the other being Rahika P.S. Case No. 145 of 2022, lodged by the police officials, in which the petitioners have already been granted bail, and the said case is the only criminal antecedent of the petitioners. It is further submitted that no specific overt act has been attributed to the petitioners, and so far as the allegations relating to the injuries sustained by the police
3/4 personnel are concerned, the petitioners have already been granted bail in the aforesaid case.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account that there is no specific allegation or overt act attributed to the petitioners, the allegations against them are general and omnibus in nature, the petitioners have already been granted bail in the connected police case arising out of the same occurrence, let the above named petitioners, 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani/Successor Court in connection with Rahika P.S. Case No.144 of 2022, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS 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
4/4 do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her/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) shikha/- U T