Rajballabh Singh @ Rajballam Singh @ Raj Ballam Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64453 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-43 Year-2025 Thana- NAGARNAUSA District- Nalanda ====================================================== 1.
Rajballabh Singh @ Rajballam Singh @ Raj Ballam Yadav S/O Rambriksh Singh R/O Village- Moniyampur, P.S- Nagarnausa, Distt.- Nalanda. 2.
Uday Singh S/O Rambriksh Singh R/O Village- Moniyampur, P.SNagarnausa, Distt.- Nalanda. 3.
Manikant Kumar S/O Uday Singh R/O Village- Moniyampur, P.SNagarnausa, Distt.- Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh.1, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Sushil Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 15-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in connection with Nagarnausa P.S. Case No. 43 of 2025 instituted for the offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 117(2), 109(1), 303(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case, is that, on objection to keeping cement sacks, the accused persons armed with iron rod, lathi, danda and firearm assaulted the informant's brother causing grievous injuries including head fracture and firearm
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64453 of 2025(2) dt.15-09-2025 2/3 injury in leg, and also assaulted the informant. It is further alleged that they snatched a gold chain and 5000/-. ₹
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that general and omnibus allegation has been made against these petitioners. The only specific allegation against the petitioner no. 2 is that he assaulted the informant's brother by iron rod on his head whereas against petitioner no. 3 is that he fired upon his brother. Learned counsel further submitted that both the parties are next door neighbour and the occurrence took place over a petty dispute and both sides sustained injuries. Learned counsel further submitted that the matter has amicably been settled outside the Court. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners are in custody since 01.08.2025. Petitioner no. 1 has one criminal antecedent whereas petitioners nos. 2 and 3 have no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioners.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as also the period of custody undergone by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64453 of 2025(2) dt.15-09-2025 3/3 petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.
7. Let the petitioners be released on bail, after framing of charge, if not already framed, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of Court below/concerned Court in connection with Nagarnausa P.S. Case No. 43 of 2025, subject to the following conditions: (I) One of the bailors shall be own/close member of the family of the petitioners.
(II) The petitioners shall appear on each and every date fixed at the trial. In case of default in such appearance on two consecutive dates, the Trial Court will have liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners.
(III) If the petitioners tamper with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Alok Verma/- U T