Rajnish Kumar @ Raj Neesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44327 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-64 Year-2024 Thana- KUDHNI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Rajnish Kumar @ Raj Neesh Kumar S/o Baban Singh R/o Village- Kishunpur Madhuban, P.S.- Kudhani, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Ms. Manisha Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal- A.P.P.
Mr. Binod Kumar Sinha Mr. Ajay Kumar Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 24-12-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 and 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of four cases, but then, the cases are under minor sections of the I.P.C. It is further submitted that informant alleges that on 12.02.2024 at about 9.00 P.M., while he was returning to his house when accused persons including the petitioner intercepted him and waylaid him and the accused demanded extortion money from him. Further, petitioner took
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44327 of 2025(5) dt.24-12-2025 2/3 out a country-made pistol and pointed at his head while Baban started searching the pocket of the informant. On protest, petitioner assaulted him on his head and eyes by means of butt of pistol causing injury on head and eyes, thereafter Baban Singh took out Rs.22,000/- from his pocket and ordered others to kill him, on which the accused Navnit assaulted the informant by hockey stick. On alarm, Bittu took out a pistol from his waist and forced it inside his mouth and accused Suman kicked him and thereafter the accused persons threw him in a maize field.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that petitioner and the informant were known to each other, as such, informant has named the accused persons, but then, has exaggerated the allegation by alleging that the accused persons intercepted him and thereafter waylaid with a view to extort money from him. It is further submitted that no doubt, petitioner is alleged to have assaulted by butt of pistol causing injury on head and eye, but then, petitioner is in custody since 29.04.2025. It is further submitted that if privilege of regular bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44327 of 2025(5) dt.24-12-2025 3/3 in the trial to prove his innocence.
5. Learned A.P.P. as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the bail application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner, above-named, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court below where the case is pending/successor in connection with Kudhani P. S. Case No.64 of 2024.
7. The application stands allowed.
8. However, it is made clear that if the learned trial court comes to a conclusion that petitioner after his release is trying the delay the framing of charge or after framing of charge is trying to delay the trial in both the condition, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. (Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T