← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./34616/2025bail granted

Arvind Singh @ Bindu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2025-06-20Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34616 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-133 Year-2024 Thana- RAJAPAKAR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Arvind Singh @ Bindu Singh S/O Late Raj Ballabh Singh @ Raj Ballam Singh R/O Village- Sapaha, Dayalpur, P.S.- Rajapakar, Baranti O.P, DistrictVaishali At Hajipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 20-06-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 20.03.2025 in connection with Rajapakar P.S. Case No. 133 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 21.04.2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 341, 325, 307, 354, 379, 506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution case, all the accused persons including the petitioner have brutally assaulted the informant and his wife. It is further alleged that the petitioner assaulted the informant by means of handle of pistol due to which informant sustained injuries and also snatched Rs. 50,000/- from

2/4 the pocket of the informant.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case due to admitted land dispute between the parties. Although petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and the said F.I.R. is in two parts. According to part one, there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner and according to second part of the F.I.R. there is general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons including petitioner. He further submits that the date of occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R. is 04.04.2024 and F.I.R. was instituted on 06.04.2024 after delay of two days without giving any explanation of delay.

He further submits that similarly situated co-accused persons, namely, Arvind Singh @ Bindu Singh and Nageshwar Singh have been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 18.01.2025 passed in Cr. Miscellaneous No. 64525 of 2024. He further submits that the Police, after investigation has submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 20.03.2025.

5. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that

3/4 there is specific allegation of assault is against the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid fact and the fact that the petitioner having clean antecedent, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Vaishali at Hajipur, in connection with Rajapakar P.S. Case No. 133 of 2024, with the following conditions:-

(1) Petitioner 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 his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

(2) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(3) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order

4/4 shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Ranjeet/- U T