Saurabh Tiwari @ Tiger Tiwari @ Tiger v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66495 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-20 Year-2025 Thana- BARUN District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Saurabh Tiwari @ Tiger Tiwari @ Tiger S/O Arvind Tiwari R/O VillKumahau, P.O- Morsarai, P.S- Shivsagar, Dist- Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Braj Kishore Pd., APP For the Informant/s :

Mr. Bijay Prakash Singh, Adv.

Mr. D.K. Singh, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 19-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

2. Let the defect as pointed out by the office notes dated 10.09.2025, be ignored in the course of the day.

3. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Barun P.S. Case No. 20 of 2025 dated 13.01.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2) read with Section 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

4. As per the prosecution case, the informant alleged that his father had left for his dispensary, when the informant was informed that he was shot, accordingly, he reached the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66495 of 2025(2) dt.19-09-2025 2/3 place of occurrence and found the dead body of his father. It is further alleged that the petitioner and the co-accused persons were demanding extortion of Rs.1 crore and they have also captured his land, further alleged that the co-accused, Dhananjay Singh provided the location of his father, leading to the occurrence.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. There is land dispute between the parties. The name of the petitioner has sprung up in this case on mere suspicion and the informant is not an eye-witnesses to the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that at para-101 of the case diary, at the time of alleged occurrence, the petitioner was found in his own village Kumhau as per his tower location. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged occurrence. The petitioner has two criminal antecedents in which he is on bail in both cases as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is in custody in this case since 06.06.2025. The bail petition of the co-accused person was rejected by this Court vide order dated 20.08.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 25647 of 2025.

6. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66495 of 2025(2) dt.19-09-2025 3/3 the informant have vehemently opposed the bail petition of the petitioner.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the period of custody, the petitioner abovenamed, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court concerned, Aurangabad in connection with Barun P.S. Case No. 20 of 2025, with a condition:- (i) The petitioner is directed to remain physically present before the learned Court below on each and every date, failing which on two consecutive dates without reasonable cause, the bail bonds of the petitioner are liable to be cancelled.

8. The application stands allowed.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) shivam/- U T