Sunil Kunwar @ Rambali Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63388 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-494 Year-2024 Thana- MOKAMAH District- Patna ====================================================== Sunil Kunwar @ Rambali Singh S/o Ramashray Kunwar Resident of - Ward No.5, Guru Deo Tola, Mokama, P.S.- Mokama, District - Patna ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Raj Krishna Jha For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Sharda Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 10-09-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Mokama P.S. Case No. 494 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 329(3), 115(2), 109, 303(2), 119, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, Rahul Kumar reported to the Mokama police that after purchasing land in Sheohar Tel on 03.11.2024, he went there for ploughing. At that time, Rambali Singh and his associates demanded 2,00,000 ₹ ransom, assaulted him with a pistol butt causing head injury, stole 4,000 from his pocket, and snatched his gold chain. He ₹ requested legal action.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he
2/4 has been made accused in connection with 25 cases, the details of which are mentioned in paragraph 3 of the anticipatory bail petition, out of which, in 16 cases he has been acquitted. It has next been submitted that in other 9 cases, the petitioner is on bail and the allegation of assault levelled against the petitioner in the hospital, is false and fabricated because neither the doctor nor the staff of the hospital has made any complaint and only to make this case serious, such allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. The injuries which is said to have been sustained by the injured Devendra Singh, which was examined on 03.11.2024, the said injury is said to be simple in nature. It has next been submitted that the co-accused Chandan Singh has also lodged one case being Mokama P.S. Case No.493 of 2024 against the maternal brothers and other family members of the informant with similar allegations and in retaliation, the present false case has been lodged. It has also been submitted that the similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted bail.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts that all the other coaccused persons have been granted bail by the Court below and allegations not being very specific and the injury inflicted upon
3/4 the informant being simple in nature, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M. IIIrd, Barh in connection with Mokama P.S. Case No. 494 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- (i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;
ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any
4/4 criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
7. It is however made clear that, in future, if similar nature of cases are registered against them, the Superintendent of Police would be obliged to verify the veracity of the complaint and if it is found in such case, they may approach the Court concerned for cancellation of bail for bringing peace and harmony.
(Ajit Kumar, J) sharun/- U T