Pankaj Kumar @ Gautam Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69542 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-190 Year-2025 Thana- TEKARI District- Gaya ====================================================== 1.

Pankaj Kumar @ Gautam Kumar Son of Pundeo Paswan R/o Village - Sindhapur, P.S. - Tekari, District -Gaya.

2.

Sonash Kumar @ Sonash Paswan Son of Ramashish Paswan R/o Village - Sindhapur, P.S. - Tekari, Dist. - Gaya.

3.

Sonu Kumar @ Sonu Paswan Son of Ramashish Paswan R/o Village - Sindhapur, P.S. - Tekari, Dist. - Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Brijmohan Das, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Shantanu Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 26-09-2025 Heard Mr. Brijmohan Das, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Shantanu Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Tekari P.S. Case No. 190 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 23.04.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 126(1), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109, 74, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

3. According to prosecution case, the petitioners along with other co-accused persons are said to have abused and assaulted the informant and her daughter with iron rod, lathi etc. due to which they got injured. It is further alleged that the accused persons tried to outrage the modesty of the informant and her daughter.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69542 of 2025(2) dt.26-09-2025 2/3

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have clean antecedent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated. It is further submitted that the informant and the petitioners are agnates to each other and there is case and counter case between them. It is further submitted that although, some of the family members of the informant have received the injury but their injury report suggests that injury is found to be simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioners have clean antecedent, both parties are agnates to each other and there is case and counter case between them and injuries inflicted upon injured persons are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance, let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their 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) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M.-VI, Gaya, in connection with Tekari P.S. Case No. 190 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/ 482(2) of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69542 of 2025(2) dt.26-09-2025 3/3 BNSS, 2023 and with other following conditions:- i. Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioners tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) priyanka/- U T