Om Prakash Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37636 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-277 Year-2015 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul ====================================================== 1.
Om Prakash Singh son of Late Triveni Singh 2.
Ram Prasad Singh @ Ram Prakash Singh Son of Late Triveni Singh 3.
Sudhanshu Shekhar Singh son of Late Triveni Singh All resident of village- Basbitti, Tola Malikana, PS and District- Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Nafisuzzoha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 15-10-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioners in this application pray for bail apprehending their arrest in connection with Supaul P.S. Case no.277 of 2015 registered for the offence punishable under sections 147, 341, 323, 427, 354 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, it is stated that the eight named accused persons including the three petitioners herein along with 15-20 others came variously armed with lathi, bhala, farsa, axe, gun etc. It is further stated that they started to cause destruction. On the informant protesting, it is stated that Jai Prakash Singh and the petitioner no.3 stated that they should
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37636 of 2025(4) dt.15-10-2025 2/3 be killed. It is further stated that the petitioner nos.1 and 3 caught hold of the informant and others and started to assault. All the accused persons assaulted the informant and others and caused destruction to the property in the house of the informant. While going away, they threatened that the informant should leave the village.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that from the contents of the FIR, it would transpire that the disputes are trivial in nature. The allegations besides being false and concocted are general and omnibus. Though the case is of the year 2015, chargesheet was submitted in the year 2016 and cognizance was taken on 24.10.2016. The petitioner came to learn about the case only on non-bailable warrants having been issued on 1.10.2024.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State.
6. On perusal of the contents of the order of the learned Court below, it transpires that cognizance having been taken and summons having been issued, the accused persons filed Cr. Misc. no.2408 of 2017 in the Patna High Court which was rejected on 26.4.2019. Thus, in that view of the matter, the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners are
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37636 of 2025(4) dt.15-10-2025 3/3 incorrect and not sustainable.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioners in the FIR, the occurrence being of the year 2015, the petitioner having full knowledge of the case, having moved this Court in Cr. Misc. no.2408 of 2017, in the facts of the case, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail after a period of 10 years and the application is rejected.
8. The petitioners are directed to surrender in the learned Court below within a period of four weeks. (Partha Sarthy, J) Saurabh/- U T