Om Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68297 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-86 Year-2025 Thana- TIKAPATTI District- Purnia ====================================================== Om Kumar Son of Ram Chandra yadav R/o Village - Teldiha, Ward No. 4 P.S. - Tikapatti, District - Purnia.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Vivekanand Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ajay Kumar Jha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 24-09-2025 Heard Mr. Vivekanand Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Tikapatti P.S. Case No. 86/2025 registered for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 310(2) and 311 of the BNS.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the informant has alleged that while he was taking 213 bags of maize loaded on a tractor, two miscreants assaulted him and looted Rs.3,500/-, a mobile phone, Aadhar card etc. from him.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Though it has been recorded
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68297 of 2025(2) dt.24-09-2025 2/3 in the impugned order in paragraph no.5 that 213 bags of corn was recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail on the ground that no such occurrence had taken place and in fact the corns in question belonged to his father and were grown on his own raiyati land. Petitioner has clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation made in the FIR, I find that the FIR is against unknown. Allegation against petitioner is to have looted a sum of Rs.3,500/- at the point of weapon from the informant and also assaulted him, causing injury. I am of the opinion that petitioner, who is having clean antecedent, has, prima facie, made out a case to be released on pre-arrest bail, subject to furnishing of land receipt with regard to land in question at the time of furnishing bail bonds.
7. The petitioner, above named, is directed to be released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned District Court within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.68297 of 2025(2) dt.24-09-2025 3/3 Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Purnea in connection with Tikapatti P.S. Case No. 86/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
8. The learned District Court is directed to verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and if it is found that the petitioner is involved in some other cases, as what has been stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail application, this order will automatically lose its force.
(Purnendu Singh, J) Sanjay/- U T