Murari Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65714 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-212 Year-2025 Thana- KARAHGAR District- Rohtas ====================================================== 1.
Murari Kumar Son of Pappu singh R/o Village - Basdiha, P.S. - Karghar, District - Rohtas.
2.
Vinod Kumar Singh @ Vinod Kumar @ Karu Singh Son of Late Jagannath Singh @ Late Jagarnath Singh R/o Village - Basdiha, P.S. - Karghar, District - Rohtas.
3.
Rabindra Singh @ Rabindra Kumar Son of Ganga Singh R/o Village - Basdiha, P.S. - Karghar, District - Rohtas.
... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Saket Anand, Adv.
For the State :
Mr. Lalan Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 25-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. As prayed for, learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to make necessary correction in the instant petition during course of the day.
3. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Karghar P.S. Case No. 212 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 3(5) of BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
2/4
4. As per prosecution case, informant's son was concertedly assaulted by the petitioners and others by means of lathi and rod. It is further alleged that informant's son was shot causing injury on his leg. It is further alleged that on account of pelting bricks and stones by petitioner Vinod Kumar and coaccused Kundan Kumar as well as Janki Devi, Laxmina Devi sustained injury on his leg.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence as alleged in the FIR and they have falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that there is no specific allegation of assault as well as firing against any of the petitioners. He further submits that allegation of pelting bricks and stones against petitioner Vinod Kumar is also general and omnibus in nature. He further submits that informant's son /victim sustained one injury which is simple in nature, as mentioned in para 56 of the case diary and the injury report does not corroborate with the manner of occurrence as stated in the FIR. He further submits that injured Laxmina Devi also sustained simple injury, as mentioned in para 57 of the case diary. Learned counsel further submits that victim Shivam Patel at para 22 of the case diary has stated that firing was made by co-accused Kundan Kumar.
3/4 Learned counsel further submits that petitioner no. 1 bears no criminal antecedent. He further submits that petitioner no. 2 bears criminal antecedent of one case whereas petitioner no. 3 bears criminal antecedent of two cases and in all the cases, petitioners no. 2 and 3 are on bail.
6. The learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that petitioners are named in the FIR and they cannot escape from the allegation made in the FIR.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no specific allegation of assault as well as firing against any of the petitioners, argument advanced on behalf of both sides and also taking into consideration the material available on record, the petitioners above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (rupees ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Rohtas at Sasaram in connection with Karghar P.S. Case No. 212 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S.
4/4
8. The application stands allowed.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J) shahzad/- U T