Vikash Paswan @ Vikash Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53119 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-77 Year-2025 Thana- HASPURA District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Vikash Paswan @ Vikash Kumar S/O late Sikandra Paswan @ Sikendra Paswan R/O Vill.- Chanhat, P.S. Haspura, Dist.- Aurangabad. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Aman Vishal, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Vinod Shanker Modi, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Nitee Ranjan, Adv.
Ms. Manisha Kumari, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-08-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109(1), 103(1), 76 and 303(2) of the BNS, 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges that she had gone to attend nature's call on 16.03.2025 at 07:00 PM when Randhir and Ranjan came and started acting inappropriately, on alarm her father-in-law, Ramsakal along with Shri Bhagat and villagers came when accused persons fled
2/4 from the place of occurrence thereafter her father-in-law along with others and Chandradeep, grand father-in-law of the informant, went to the house of the accused persons when Randhir assaulted Ramsakal with sword causing injury on head, thereafter Ranjan assaulted Chandradeep with lathi, danda and sword causing injury, further petitioner also assaulted Chandradeep and Suresh with lathi, danda and sword causing injury, further with the help of villagers, the injured were brought to the hospital, where Chandradeep died on 17.03.2025 during the course of treatment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant by the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R., it would manifest that petitioner is not alleged to have acted inappropriately with the informant when she had gone to attend nature's call. It is further submitted that petitioner is alleged to have assaulted Chandradeep and Suresh, but then Ranjan is also alleged to have assaulted Chandradeep, as recorded hereinabove. It is further submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R., it would manifest that informant was not an eye witness to the occurrence, but then she alleges that petitioner along with
3/4 Ranjan assaulted Chandradeep who subsequently died during the course of treatment. It is next submitted that even presuming what has been alleged is true without admitting then it cannot be alleged with certainty that it was on account of assault by the petitioner that Chandradeep died.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the father-in-law of the informant was present at the place of occurrence when the occurrence is alleged to have taken place. It is also submitted that since he was injured, as such, the informant instituted the instant FIR with the aforesaid allegation. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant further submits that what is not in dispute rather stands admitted is that Chandradeep died, but then whether he died on account of assault made by petitioner or Ranjan is an aspect of investigation and trial, but then for the present it can be safely submitted that petitioner is alleged to have assaulted Chandradeep leading to his death and the investigation is still continuing.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
4/4 the informant, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T