Rama Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44740 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-102 Year-2018 Thana- GOVINDGANJ District- East Champaran ====================================================== 1.
Rama Singh S/o Late Suryadeo Singh Resident of village- Pipra, Jitwarpur, Thana- Govindganj, District- East Champaran Motihari 2.
Umesh Singh S/o Late Suryadeo Singh R/o vill - Pipra Jitwarpur, P.S.- Govindganj, Distt.- East Champaran, Motihari 3.
Sudama Singh S/o Late Suryadeo Singh R/o vill - Pipra, Jitwarpur, P.S.- Govindganj, Dist.- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Jai Narain Thakur, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 08-07-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending his arrest in connection with Trail No. 3095 of 2022 arising out of Govindganj P.S. Case No. 102 of 2018, F.I.R dated 04.05.2018 registered for the offences punishable under Section(s) 147, 148, 149, 448, 341, 323, 324, 307, 379 and 504 of Indian Penal Code / Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, on 01.05.2018, a dispute arose regarding the display of an illegal "Nalkatua" and videography of women. Following the protest made by her son,
2/4 Prashant Singh @ Nanhe Singh, accused Chandra Shekhar Singh allegedly became enraged. Later, at about 10:00 P.M., when the Barat arrived at the house of Sunil Singh, the accused allegedly attacked Prashant Singh on the head with a sword with an intention to kill, causing serious injury and making him fall unconscious, accordingly the F.I.R.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for allegation which is said to have been levelled in the instant F.I.R. in the year 2018, the Police officials have recently tried to trace this petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that after investigation final form was submitted against this petitioners, and differing with the same, the court concerned, being A.C.J.M. 1st East Champaran, Motihari has taken cognizance. And, it has next been submitted that the persons, against whom specific allegation of overt act was made, have already been extended the privilege of anticipatory bail to the co-accused namely, Chandra Shekhar Singh, Basant Kumar Singh, Raman Kumar Singh and Bhola Singh. But differing with the said report, cognizance has been taken. It is also submitted that the petitioner No. 1 is aged about 81 years, petitioner No. 2 is aged about 52 years and petitioner No. 3 is aged about 79 years.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
3/4 anticipatory bail in respect of the petitioners.
6. Considering the aforesaid fact that the persons with specific allegations of overt attack have already been extended the privilege of anticipatory bail and these petitioners against whom investigation upon final form has been submitted, accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, 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 the learned C.J.M., Motihari, East Champaran in connection with the afore-mentioned P.S. Case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- (i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document/personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason
4/4 will entail cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) 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; (iv) the petitioner(s) 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.
(Ajit Kumar, J) surya/- U