Surendra Kumar Pandey @ Surendra Pandey v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42711 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2026 Thana- SURYAPURA District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1.
Surendra Kumar Pandey @ Surendra Pandey S/o Late Ram Bachan Pandey R/o vill - Garahatha, P.S.- Hasan Bazar, Distt.- Bhojpur 2.
Sandeep Kumar Pandey S/o Surendra Pandey @ Surendra Kumar Pandey R/o vill - Garahatha, P.S.- Hasan Bazar, Distt.- Bhojpur 3.
Ravindra Kumar Singh @ Ravindra Singh S/o Late Vindeshwari Singh R/o vill- Majhion, P.S.- Hasan Bazar, Distt.- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Varun Krishna Singh, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Amarendra Kumar, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-07-2026 Heard Mr. Jitendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Amarendra Kumar, learned counsel for the Informant and Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioners seek bail, who are in custody since 10.05.2026, in connection with Suryapura P.S. Case No. 142 of 2026, F.I.R. dated 09.05.2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 339(3), 118(1), 109, 352, 351(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Allegation against the petitioners is that they along
2/4 with co-accused person entered into the house of the informant and assaulted him. It is further alleged that petitioner no. 1 hit the informant by means of bricks and stones, petitioner no. 2 pointed out country made pistol at him and threatened him to kill.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have clean antecedents and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. He further submits that due to matrimonial dispute of the daughter of the petitioner no. 1, the present occurrence had taken place and there is case and counter case between the parties. Although there is specific allegation against the petitioner no. 1 that he has assaulted the informant by means of bricks and stones and he has received injury. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there was no intention to kill anyone but due to spur of moment the present occurrence had taken place. Petitioners are in custody since 10.05.2026.
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
3/4 petitioners.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the petitioners, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bikramganj, Rohtas in connection with Suryapura P.S. Case No. 142 of 2026, subject to the following conditions :-
(1) Petitioners 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 their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bonds shall be cancelled by the Court below.
(2) If the petitioners tamper 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 petitioners and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. 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) Ibrar//- U T