Patna High CourtCR. MISC./75175/2025allowed

Raja Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2025-12-23Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Pandey3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75175 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-180 Year-2025 Thana- CHAUTHAM District- Khagaria ====================================================== Raja Kumar S/o Sanjay Singh R/o Village- Mohanpur, P.O.- Thuthhi, P.S.- Chautham, Distt- Khagaria.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rupesh Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 23-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Chautham P.S. Case No. 180/2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109, 303(2), 352, 351(2) (3) of the B.N.S. and 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per prosecution case, the petitioner and others are said to have started constructing a house on the land of the informant. When the informant objected, he was abused and assaulted by the petitioner and others, who also looted 900 bags of maize. It is further alleged that co-accused Vigul Singh @ Ranjay Singh fired at the informant with intention to kill, however, the informant managed to escape without sustaining any injury.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75175 of 2025(2) dt.23-12-2025 2/3 petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The petitioner is languishing in custody since 08.07.2025 and bears one criminal antecedent in which he is on bail. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner rather allegations are general and omnibus in nature. From perusal of FIR, it appears that there is specific allegation of firing against co-accused Vigul Singh @ Ranjay Singh. He further submits that there is case and counter case between both the parties on the same date of occurrence. Both parties are of same village and petitioners' side have lodged Chautham P.S. Case No. 181/2025 and the present case is nothing but the counter blast of said case.

He further submits that there is land dispute between the parties and in the cases of land dispute facts are generally exaggerated to make the case graver. He orally submits that charge sheet has been submitted in this case and there is no likelihood of tampering with the prosecution evidence. On similar and identical allegation, coaccused Shivshankar Singh @ Shiv Shankar Singh has already been granted bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide Cr. Misc. No.77201/2025 and on the principle of parity the petitioner also deserves same treatment.

5. The learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner is FIR named accused and he cannot escape from the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75175 of 2025(2) dt.23-12-2025 3/3 allegation made in the FIR.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, period of custody, co-accused has already been granted bail, argument advanced on behalf of both sides and also taking into consideration the material available on record, let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., Khagaria in connection with Chautham P.S. Case No. 180/2025 corresponding to G.R. No. 1936/2025, subject to following conditions:- (i) One of the bailors shall be either father or mother or sister or brother or wife or the person who has sworn the affidavit in bail application.

(ii) Petitioner will co-operate in trial and will remain present on all dates and absence for two consecutive dates without appropriate permission, would be a ground for cancellation of bail by the learned Trial court itself.

(iii) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J) amitkumar/- U T