Karamveer @ Raja @ Ranjan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47654 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2025 Thana- NOKHA District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1.

Karamveer @ Raja @ Ranjan S/o- Chhotelal Ram Village Ps- Nokha DistRohtas 2.

Dharamveer @ Pandit S/o- Chhotelal Ram Village Ps- Nokha Dist- Rohtas 3.

Sheela Kuer W/o- Late Ramesh Ram Village Ps- Nokha Dist- Rohtas 4.

Vishal Kumar S/o- Late Ramesh Ram Village Ps- Nokha Dist- Rohtas 5.

Sany Kumar @ Sunny Kumar @ Shany Kumar S/o- Chhotan Dom Village Ps- Sinha Dist- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Babu Nandan Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Tarun Prasad Mandal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 30-07-2025 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 74, 329(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No. 1 has antecedent of three cases, petitioner No. 2 has antecedent of four cases, and petitioner Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are persons with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that on 22-3-2025 at about 11 PM in the night, all the named accused

2/4 persons including the petitioners entered her house on the pretext that her son eloped with the daughter of one of the accused, thereafter petitioner No. 2 caught her hair and dragged her on the ground, further Veer Kumar fired from his pistol causing injury on right thigh of Arjun. It is next alleged that petitioner No. 1 assaulted Bahadur Ram by an iron rod causing injury on head, while Arun Ram and Petitioner No. 5 assaulted Sikander by sword causing injury on his head and petitioner No. 3 threatened, further co-accused Chotelal assaulted informant's husband by an iron rod causing injury on his hand and also fired five times on informant's door.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that allegation of firing is against Veer Kumar and not against the petitioners. It is further submitted that no doubt it is alleged that petitioner No. 1 assaulted Bahadur Ram by an iron rod causing injury on head, but then the opinion is reserved. It is also submitted that Arun Ram and Petitioner No. 5 are alleged to have assaulted Sikander by sword causing injury on his head, but then Sikander did not suffer sword injury.

5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for

3/4 anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on the ground that son of the informant fled with daughter of one of the accused persons. It is next submitted that there is specific allegation against Veer Kumar of causing fire-arm injury to Arjun. It is further submitted that if son of the informant committed any mistake, whether the entire family could have been punished in the manner as it has been alleged in the FIR. It is also submitted that injury of the injured is reserved, but then the allegation of firing causing injury is a serious issue. It is next submitted that Veer Kumar committed the occurrence of firing feeling embolden by the presence of the accused persons at the place of occurrence. It is also submitted that investigation is in its nascent stages, and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, the petitioners may abscond as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have antecedent of 3 and 4 cases.

6.

At this stage the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that as far as petitioner Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are concerned, no specific allegation of assault is alleged against them and petitioner No. 3 is a woman. 7.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,

4/4 the petitioner Nos. 3, 4 and 5, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Nokha P.S. Case No. 89 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS.

8.

However, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. 9.

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is partly allowed.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T