Pawan Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38855 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-51 Year-2026 Thana- PARBATTA District- Khagaria ====================================================== Pawan Kumar Singh S/o Madan Singh R/O Village- Aguani Panchayat, Aguani (Eastern Tola),Ward No -12 ,P.S- Parbatta, District- Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Vivekanand Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ganesh Prasad Singh, APP For the Informant : Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 22-06-2026 Heard Mr.Vivekanand Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the informant and Mr.Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 11.03.2026 in connection with Parbatta P.S. Case No. 51 of 2026, F.I.R. dated 07.02.2026 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 303(2), 76, 109(1), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of BNS.
3. Allegation against the petitioner is the he assaulted to the husband and son of the informant with sticks and iron rod.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the present case is counter blast of Parbatta P.S.Case No. 50 of 2026. Learned counsel for the petitioner
2/4 submits that from a bare perusal of the FIR it appears that the date of occurrence as alleged in the FIR is 05.02.2026 but the present FIR has been instituted on 07.02.2026 after delay of two days without giving any explanation of delay afterthought only to falsely implicate the petitioner in the present case. It appears from the FIR that due to some petty dispute the present occurrence has taken place. Although the petitioner is named in the FIR but from a bare perusal of the FIR it appears that there is no specific allegation of any assault or overt-act attributed against the petitioner rather there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner in the FIR. Although some of the persons have received the injury which is grievous in nature and some persons have received the injury which is simplein nature and the police, after investigation, submitted the chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 11.03.2026.
5. Learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State, on the other hand, have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is named in the FIR, apart from that, the petitioner, with wrong intention, has assaulted to the injured persons and some of the injuries are grievous in nature.
3/4
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, petitioner has clean antecedent, present case is counter blast of Parbatta P.S.Case No. 50 of 2026 and there is no specific allegation against the petitioner in the FIR rather there is general and omnibus allegation, 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 A.C.J.M.-1st, Khagaria in connection with Parbatta P.S. Case No. 51 of 2026, with the following conditions:- (I) 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. (II) 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.
(III) 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
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) Nitesh/- U T