Ramsundar Mukhiya v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39388 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-71 Year-2026 Thana- KISHANPUR District- Supaul ====================================================== Ramsundar Mukhiya S/O Late Lutan Mukhiya R/V-Noniyari Tola, Singaiwan, Ward No 01, PS- Kishanpur, Distrist- Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Prasoon Kumar, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-06-2026 Heard Mr. Prasoon Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Informant and Mr. Umesh Lal Verma, learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 09.04.2026, in connection with Kishanpur P.S. Case No. 71 of 2026, F.I.R. dated 24.03.2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115, 118(1), 117(2), 109, 76, 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.

3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he has assaulted to the husband of the informant by means of farsha due to which he received injury.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39388 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026 2/3 present case. He further submits that from perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that due to some petty dispute the present occurrence had taken place. Although there is specific allegation in the F.I.R. that he has assaulted to the husband of the informant by means of farsha and he has received injury but the injury report of the husband of the informant suggests that the injury is simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance and the petitioner is in custody since 09.04.2026.

5. Learned counsel for the Informant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R. and apart from aforesaid the petitioner carries five more cases other than the present one but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph-3 of the bail petition that out of five cases, the petitioner is on bail in three cases and rest two cases are pending for consideration before the competent court of law.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39388 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026 3/3 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Supaul in connection with Kishanpur P.S. Case No. 71 of 2026, subject to 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 absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

(2) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witness, 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 antecedents, 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 shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

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