Pankaj Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41057 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-53 Year-2025 Thana- HALSI District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== 1.
Pankaj Singh S/O Sri Bhagwan Singh R/O Village- Baghaur, P.S.- Halsi, District- Lakhisarai 2.
Pranav Ranjan S/O Pankaj Singh R/O Village- Baghaur, P.S.- Halsi, DistrictLakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Kundan Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 09-07-2025 Heard Mr. Kundan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in connection with Halsi P.S. Case No. 53 of 2025 instituted under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 110, 281, 303(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita lodged on 11.03.2025 by the informant, Kaushlendra Singh.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that as he was coming to his home, Harsh Ranjan alongwith the accused persons including these petitioners blocked near the gas godown wherafter, it is alleged that Harsh Ranjan dashed his
2/4 motorcycle, he fell down, whereater allegation is that Harsh Ranjan pointed pistol and assaulted by its butt causing injury in temporal region. Allegation against petitioner no.2 Pranav Ranjan is of putting a towel around his neck and abuse. The further allegation is of snatching gold chain while allegation against petitioner no.1 is that he caught hold of his waist. Further, allegation is that the amount he has withdrawn from the Bank was taken up by the Harsh Ranjan. As the locals came, they fled away. This led to the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the main allegation of assault and snatching of the amount is on Harsh Ranjan, allegation against these petitioner is of abusing, putting the towel around the neck as also having caught hold of the waist. Both the father and son duo have no criminal antecedent and if granted relief, they shall be diligently appearing in trial.
5. Learned APP opposes the prayer stating that though the main allegation is against Harsh Ranjan, there are allegations against these two petitioners.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts as narrated beside that though two petitioners have no criminal antecedent, the main allegation is against Harsh Ranjan, in that background,
3/4 this Court is inclined to extend them the privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. Let the petitioners be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the subordinate court within a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each in connection with Halsi P.S. Case No. 53 of 2025 to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Lakhisarai subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. as also the other conditions.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family member of the petitioners who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioners shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioners shall co-operate in the investigation and make themselves available to the police as and when required;
(iv) the petitioners shall appear before the concerned police station every fortnight for next six months to mark their
4/4 attendance;
(v) the petitioners shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(vi) the petitioners shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds. (Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U T