Ritlal Kumar @ Ritlal Dhangar @ Ritlal Dhangad v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78178 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-271 Year-2025 Thana- LAURIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== 1.
Ritlal Kumar @ Ritlal Dhangar @ Ritlal Dhangad S/o- Chanda Dhangar @ Chanda Dhangad R/v- Sirkahiya Ps- lauriya Dist- West Champaran 2.
Bikau Dhangar @ Bikau Kumar @ Bikau Dhangad S/o- Amirka Manjhi @ Amika Dhangad R/v- Sirkahiya Ps- lauriya Dist- West Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sarvesh Kashyap, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 03-12-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Lauriya P.S. Case No.271 of 2025, F.I.R dated 26.06.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, on 24.06.2025 around 3:00 p.m., while he was driving his tempo towards Nawalpur, the accused persons, who were drunk, stopped his vehicle, abused him, and assaulted him. Krishna Dhangar hit
2/4 him on the head with an iron rod. When Sk. Mustakim and Birendra Sharma tried to intervene, they were also assaulted. All three injured individuals were later taken to the hospital for treatment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that for an incident of 24.06.2025 which is said to have taken place at 3:00 p.m., the F.I.R. is lodged after 48 hours and there is no evidence of the same. It has next been submitted that the petitioners and co-accused are resident of the same village and the informant was driving his auto in a drunken state and in due course he crashed the auto in the house of Krishna Dhangar and then a hot word exchange took place between both sides which converted into a free fighting and both the sides got injured and with ulterior reasons, the relatives of Krishna Dhangar has been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that petitioner No.1 has clean antecedent however, petitioner No.2 has one criminal antecedent which is related to Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act. It has further been submitted by referring to paragraph 9 of the anticipatory bail application that the injuries inflicted upon the informant, as has been opined by the Doctor, is simple in nature.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
3/4 anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that the allegations are general and omnibus in nature and there is no specific allegation against the petitioners and injuries inflicted upon the informant is simple in nature. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M. 1st Bettiah, West Champaran, in connection with Lauriya P.S. Case No.271 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- (i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
4/4 date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds. (Ajit Kumar, J) sharun/- U T