Vikash Ram @ Vikesh Kumar @ Vikesh Kumar Ram v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69844 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-262 Year-2025 Thana- NAUTAN District- West Champaran ====================================================== 1.
Vikash Ram @ Vikesh Kumar @ Vikesh Kumar Ram S/o Yogendra Ram R/o Village- South Telhua Ward No. 15 Tola Navrahi, P.S.- Nautan, DistrictWest Champaran 2.
Dhanesh Ram S/o Faguni Ram R/o Village- South Telhua Ward No. 15 Tola Navrahi, P.S.- Nautan, District- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Sarvesh Kashyap, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Ms.Nirmala Kumari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 21-01-2026 Heard Mr. Sarvesh Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Nautan P.S. Case No. 262 of 2025 for the offence punishable under sections 126(2), 115(2), 118, 109, 303(2) and 3(5) of the BNS lodged on 07.06.2025 by the informant.
3. As per the prosecution case, the allegation against the petitioners is that on 15.04.2025, the petitioners along with other accused persons were playing obscene songs on DJ and when the son of the informant namely, Laddu Kumar requested them to play the songs at low volume, this enraged the petitioners and others, as a result of which, the petitioners are
2/4 said to have assaulted his son on his head by means of iron rod inflicting injuries due to which, his son fell unconscious. Accordingly, the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these petitioners belong to Scheduled Castes and owing to their status in the society, the informant and his family members have regularly been harassing them for which the case has been registered by these petitioners, the details of which, is referred at para-9 of the present petition being Bettiah SC/ST PS Case No. 15 of 2025 registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 76, 351(2), 3(5) and 3(2) (va), 3(i)(r), 3(1) (s) of the SC/ST Act against the informant and his family members. It has next been submitted that altogether seven persons have been made accused in this case while five of them have been allowed the privilege of anticipatory bail by the learned trial court itself. Learned counsel further submits that the injuries, which are said to have been sustained by the informant's son, do not corroborate the allegation which is levelled in the FIR, while the nature of injuries as opined by the treating doctor, has been found to be simple.
5. Learned APP opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.
3/4
6. Considering the fact that there is a case and counter case between the parties as stated above, the injuries sustained by the son of the informant are simple in nature, petitioners are next door neighbours and they have got clean antecedent, this Court is inclined to extend them the privilege of anticipatory bail.
7. Let the petitioners, above named, be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah, West Champaran in connection with aforesaid PS Case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS as well as the 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/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
4/4 (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 criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his/their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J) perwez U T