Sidhnath Singh @ Sidhnath Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49064 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2025 Thana- KARPI District- Arwal ====================================================== SIDHNATH SINGH @ SIDHNATH YADAV S/o- Late Bachchu Yadav Village- Biddhu Bigha Ps- Karpi Dist- Arwal.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Yogendra Kumar Diwedy, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 03-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with S.T. No.237/2025/614/2025 arising out of Karpi P.S. Case No.62 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 190, 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1) and 103(1) of B.N.S., 2023 as well as under Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per prosecution case, the informant and his family members were harvesting lentil crops in their field which was situated at the east side of the house, meanwhile, petitioner and others armed with lathi, danda, pistol came. It is alleged that coaccused Deepak Kumar @ Manish Kumar, Kamlesh Yadav and Bimlesh Kumar were armed with pistol and they started firing indiscriminately. It is further alleged that petitioner and others
2/4 assaulted the informant's uncle by means of lathi as a result of which informant's uncle sustained injury in his palm. It is further alleged that during course of indiscriminate firing, the bullet fired from the desi katta of co-accused Bimlesh Kumar @ Ankit Kumar hit the informant's father as a result of which informant's father sustained gun shot injury below his right shoulder and informant's father fell down. Thereafter, co-accused Bimlesh Kumar @ Ankit Kumar assaulted the informant's father upon his head as a result of which informant's father died.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner rather the allegations are general and omnibus. The specific overt-act of firing is against co-accused, Bimlesh Kumar @ Ankit Kumar and postmortem report indicates one firearm wound was found on the body of the deceased and the allegations against the petitioner are oblique in nature and vague. It is submitted that no offence is made out in the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, apart from that petitioner is in custody since 23.03.2025. It is lastly submitted that charge-sheet has already been submitted in the case and there is no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence and the petitioner bears no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant have vehemently opposed the
3/4 bail petition by submitting that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and he cannot escape from the allegations made in the F.I.R.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, period of custody, keeping in view clean antecedent of the petitioner, allegation against the petitioner is general and omnibus nature, charge sheet has been submitted in the case and there is no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence, arguments advanced on behalf of both sides and also taking into consideration the materials available on record, let petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Arwal in connection with Karpi P.S. Case No.62 of 2025, giving rise to S.T. No.237/2025/614/2025, subject to the following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors shall be either father or mother or sister or brother or wife or the person who has sworn the affidavit in bail application.
(ii) Petitioner will co-operate in trial and will remain present on all dates and absence for two consecutive dates without appropriate permission, would be a ground for cancellation of bail by the learned trial court itself.
(iii) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
4/4 witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J) Sanjay/- U T