Patna High CourtCR. MISC./49738/2025bail rejected

Prakash Kumar Singh @ Mintu Kumar Singh @ Mintu Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2025-10-09Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49738 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-46 Year-2025 Thana- RASULPUR District- Saran ====================================================== Prakash Kumar Singh @ Mintu Kumar Singh @ Mintu Singh S/o Haripal Singh R/o vill - Nawada, P.S.- Rasulpur, Distt.- Saran at Chhapra ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 09-10-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2) 115(2), 109(1), 303(2), 351(2), 352 or 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that in a marriage ceremony petitioner along with his friends assaulted the son of the informant, namely, Binit on 12.02.2025, further the next day petitioner apologize, it is next alleged that his elder son Subham who is in the Air Force had come and on 14.03.2025 at 8:30 P.M. while he was coming back home after playing holi, he met the petitioner and asked why he had assaulted his brother on which petitioner, Anup, Haripal in a drunken condition along with wife of Haripal

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49738 of 2025(3) dt.09-10-2025 2/3 started assaulting him and petitioner assaulted by butt of pistol causing injury on his nose while Anup assaulted by dab on head and Haripal assaulted by an iron rod causing injury on head and wife of Haripal was giving them weapon to assault and also snatched his chain and Rs. 5,000/- and the accused persons fled thinking he is dead, thereafter injured was brought to the hospital from where he was referred to higher centre and was admitted in ICU at Sadar hospital, Danapur from where he was referred to Army hospital, Danapur.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that petitioner prior to the occurrence, was admitted in Ruban hospital. It is also submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. it would manifest that the petitioner is alleged to have assaulted the injured by butt of pistol causing injury on the nose but then the injured suffered no injury on nose which belie the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. It is also submitted that petitioner and the informant are agnates. It is also submitted that from side of the petitioner Rasulpur P.S. Case No. 48 of 2025 dated 19.03.2025 has been instituted by the father of the petitioner.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49738 of 2025(3) dt.09-10-2025 3/3

5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that what is not in dispute rather stands admitted is that the injured was brutally assaulted by the accused persons including the petitioner and the injured suffered six injuries and was finally admitted in the Army Hospital, Danapur in ICU. It is also submitted no doubt petitioner was admitted in Ruban hospital but then he was admitted on 05.05.2024 and the date of occurrence is 14.03.2025. It is next submitted that the fact that an F.I.R. also came to be instituted from the side of the petitioner which amply demonstrate that an occurrence of the nature as alleged had taken place.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, this Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Ranjeet/- U T