Pramod Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66292 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-228 Year-2025 Thana- PATEPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== 1.

Pramod Rai S/O Late Sakal Rai R/O Vill.- Nirpur, P.S.- Patepur, DistrictVaishali 2.

Raju Sharma @ Ranu Sharma S/O Ramishwar Sharma @ Ramishwar Rai R/O Vill.- Nirpur, P.S.- Patepur, District- Vaishali 3.

Anil Rai S/O Pramod Rai R/O Vill.- Nirpur, P.S.- Patepur, District- Vaishali 4.

Ramishwar Rai @ Ramishwar Sharma S/O Bahadur Thakur R/O Vill.- Nirpur, P.S.- Patepur, District- Vaishali 5.

Raghubir Sahni S/O Kamlesh Sahni R/O Vill.- Nirpur, P.S.- Patepur, District- Vaishali 6.

Rambalak Rai @ Ram Ekbal Rai S/o Ramdev Rai R/O Vill.- Nirpur, P.S.- Patepur, District- Vaishali 7.

Santoshi Rai S/o Ramdev Rai R/O Vill.- Nirpur, P.S.- Patepur, DistrictVaishali 8.

Kumod Rai S/O Late Sakal Rai R/O Vill.- Nirpur, P.S.- Patepur, DistrictVaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ravish Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Rana Randhir Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 14-10-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 127(1), 115(2), 303(2), 109, 76, 351(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant

2/4 alleges that his niece on 08.07.2025 at 2.00 P.M. was guarding the orchard of Ram Kumar. Further, Raju Sharma plucked some mangoes from the orchard. On protest, Raju Sharma abused his niece and tore her clothes, thereafter, 12 named accused persons including the petitioners came and brought Manoj Rai in the orchard. Accordingly, on information given by the father of the informant, the informant along with named persons came to the orchard, when Kumud assaulted him by brick causing injury near the left eye and below the ear and also assaulted by rod causing injury on hand. Further, Raghubir assaulted Prince by rod causing injury on head and inside the cheek. Thereafter Raju assaulted Shyam Kumar by rod causing injury on head, while Arjun assaulted Sonu by rod causing injury on mid of head and also assaulted all over the body.

Further, Mukesh assaulted Ramji Rai by lathi all over his body, thereafter Ramishwar assaulted Reena by lathi while Vikash assaulted Tannu by lathi and acted inappropriately. Further, Ram Ekbal Sharma and Santosh assaulted Sita and Girja by fists and Dashrath and Wakil snatched Mangalsutra of Reena and Sita. On intervention of villagers, the injured were brought to the hospital.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that it does not appear probable that

3/4 informant with such certainty would have alleged who assaulted whom and by what and where. It is further submitted that from perusal of the order impugned, it would manifest that injury suffered by the injured have been opined to be simple except one injury of Sita which is on her right hand and Ram Ekbal and Santosh are alleged to have assaulted her, but then, submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that Ram Ekbal and Santosh are alleged to have assaulted Sita by fists and lathi, as such, allegation of assault is not specific. It is also submitted that hand is not a vital part of the body. It is further submitted that on account of a trivial issue of plucking mango, the occurrence is alleged to have taken place. It is next submitted that from the side of the petitioners, Patepur P. S.

Case No.227 of 2025 has been instituted and a supplementary affidavit to that effect has been filed wherein at Para-4, it has been specifically pleaded that from perusal of injury report of Raghubir Sahani, it is clear that he suffered grievous injury i.e. fracture of left ulna while Pramod suffered grievous injury on his head and Chandan Kumar Sharma also suffered grievous injury i.e. fracture on right hand. It is further submitted that Santosh is a senior citizen aged about 60 years and he has been implicated in the instant case only with a view to coerce other family members into submission.

4/4 other and injuries were caused to both sides and petitioners are not criminals.

5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners, above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks, are directed to be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Patepur P. S. Case No.228 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

7. The application stands allowed.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T