Bablu Singh @ Shubodh Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74597 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-217 Year-2024 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== 1.
Bablu Singh @ Shubodh Kumar Singh S/O Late Randhir Singh R/O Vill.- Fatehpur, P.S.- Raghopur, Dist.- Vaishali 2.
Rajiv Ranjan Singh @ Ranjan Singh S/O Late Randhir Singh R/O Vill.- Fatehpur, P.S.- Raghopur, Dist.- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Ms.Eashita Raj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Rajendra Prasad Nat, APP For the Informant :
Ms. Shashi Priya, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 20-02-2026 Heard Ms. Eashita Raj, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Shashi Priya, learned counsel for the informant beside the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in connection with Raghopur P.S. Case No. 217 of 2024 instituted under Sections 126, 115(2), 118, 117(2), 109, 303(2), 352, 351(3), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to section 339, 323, 324, 325, 307, 379, 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act lodged on 01.08.2024 by the informant, Mukesh Singh.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that both the petitioners alongwith the anti-social elements used
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74597 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026 2/3 to cut soil from the JCB of the informant's land. This was repeatedly objected by the informant but always got the abuse. In one such incident, he raised the matter with the local residents when the petitioner no.1 called him to his home on 15.07.2024.
4. When he reached the place, allegation is that the accused persons were present and on the instruction of petitioner no.01, the assault took place which included the petitioner no.2 and the sons of petitioner no.1. While the petitioner no.1 used Shovel which hit the head of the informant, the petitioner no.2 opened fire but the cartridge got stuck. He, however, used his pistol butt to assault on the eyes causing injuries. This followed the FIR.
5. In this case, a coordinate bench had called for the case diary on 19.11.2025 which is on record. There are preliminary and final injury reports of the Primary Health Centre, Raghopur, Vaishali which shows that wound of the scalp have been found to be grievous in nature beside other injuries below the left eye and fifth finger of the right hand.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that exaggerated FIR is there, all the family members have been roped in, fact remains that though allegation of opening fire is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74597 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026 3/3 there, no firing took place. Further, some of the injuries have been found to be simple in nature and the allegation is omnibus nature.
7. Learned counsel for the informant on the other hand opposes the prayer and with the help of counter affidavit submits that the informant remained in hospital for twenty days and the injuries that he has received is fully supported by the final injury provided by the government hospital.
8. Considering the submissions of the parties as also the materials that are on record, allegation is/are grave against the two petitioners, in that background, it would be appropriate that they seek bail.
9. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U T