Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.75777 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-84 Year-2025 Thana- NAWADA MUFFASIL District- Nawada ====================================================== 1.

RAHUL KUMAR Son of Sanjay Prasad @ Sanjay Kumar R/o Village - Bhagwanpur, P.S.- Nawada Muffasil, District - Nawada. 2.

Ravi Ranjan Kumar @ Raviranjan Kumar Son of Shambhu Prasad R/o Village - Bhagwanpur, P.S.- Nawada Muffasil, District - Nawada. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sumit Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Chandra Bhushan Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 23-12-2025

1. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners and the learned APP Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad for the State.

2. The petitioners seek bail in a case instituted for the offences under Sections 103(2) of the B.N.S.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and are in custody since 28.02.2025. It is next submitted that informant alleges that her co-villagers Rahul, Ravi, Sanjay, Vipin, Gorelal, Pankaj and Prabhat came to her house and called her son Mrityunjay and co-villager Pravesh and took them to Hardiya Asthan and told them that they committed theft in their house, hence will kill them. Further, the informant along with

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75777 of 2025(3) dt.23-12-2025 2/3 her daughter went to Hardiya Asthan where they saw the accused persons including the petitioners along with 10 unknown accused persons assaulting her son and Pravesh by lathi and danda, accordingly the informant intervened when she along with her daughter were also assaulted and accused persons fled. Thereafter, police was informed and the injured were taken to hospital where Mrityunjay died during the course of treatment.

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 from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that allegation of assault is general and omnibus in nature. It is also submitted that from the side of the petitioners Baby Devi had instituted Nawada P. S. Case No. 81 of 2025 against unknown accused alleging theft in her house. It is further submitted that similarly situated co-accused Pankaj Kumar and Prabhat Kumar had approached this Court seeking bail by filing Cr. Misc. No.35716 of 2025 and Cr. Misc. No.36577 of 2025 and the same came to be allowed by an order dated 08.10.2025 passed by a learned Coordinate Bench. It is further submitted that charge-sheet has already been submitted, as such, no useful

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.75777 of 2025(3) dt.23-12-2025 3/3 purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners in jail. It is also submitted that petitioners will not abscond rather will cooperate in the trial to prove their innocence.

5. Considering the submissions and taking into consideration the order dated 08.10.2025 in Cr. Misc. No.35716 of 2025 and Cr. Misc. No.36577 of 2025, the petitioners, abovenamed, are directed to be released on 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 learned ACJM-1, Nawada/ Concerned Court in connection with Nawada Muffasil P. S. Case No.84 of 2025.

6. The application stands allowed.

7. However, it is made clear that if the learned trial court comes to a conclusion that petitioners after their release are trying the delay the framing of charge or after framing of charge are trying to delay the trial in both the condition, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioners.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T