Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Sanoj v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42644 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-318 Year-2024 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Sanoj S/o Late Shambhu Roy R/o Mohalla Imaliatal, PS Danapur, District- Patna 2.

Upendra Roy S/O Late Ram Bahadur Roy R/O Village-Bishunpur, PSAkilpur, Distt-Saran, presently residing at Mohalla Imaliatal, PS Danapur, District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Dr. Indiwar Kumari, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 04-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

2. Petitioners apprehend arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 307, 195(A), 120(B), 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per prosecution case, all the F.I.R. named accused persons including these petitioners entered the office of informant and tried to kill him. Petitioner No. 1 is alleged to have fired upon the informant as a result of which he sustained grievous injury.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that though there is specific accusation of firing against

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42644 of 2025(2) dt.04-08-2025 2/3 petitioner No. 1 but so far petitioner no. 2 is concerned, there is no specific allegation of overt act against him. It is further submitted that similarly situated co-accused, namely, Vinod Rai has already been granted anticipatory bail by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 03.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 90211 of 2024. Petitioner no. 2 claims clean antecedent.

5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application and submits that petitioner No. 1 fired upon the informant causing grievous injury.

6. In view of the fact that petitioner No. 1 caused grievous injury, prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner No. 1 is refused.

7. However, considering the nature of accusation and clean antecedent against petitioner No. 2, the anticipatory bail with regard to petitioner No. 2 is allowed and it is ordered that the above named petitioner No. 2 in the event of his arrest/surrender before the court below within a period of eight weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 1st, Danapur in connection with Danapur P. S. Case No. 318 of 2024, subject to condition as laid down under

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42644 of 2025(2) dt.04-08-2025 3/3 Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Navya/- U T