Madhusudan v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83369 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-96 Year-2025 Thana- Piplawa District- Patna ====================================================== 1.
Madhusudan S/o- Late Lorik Ray Village- Sarari, P.S- Piplawan, DistrictPatna. 2.
Ravi Kumar @ Raviranjan S/o- Nand Babu Ray Village- Sarari, P.SPiplawan, District- Patna. 3.
Ripu S/o- Late Lorik Ray Village- Sarari, P.S- Piplawan, District- Patna. 4.
Deepak Kumar S/o- Madan Ray Village- Sarari, P.S- Piplawan, DistrictPatna. 5.
Nand Babu Ray S/o- Late Lorik Ray Village- Sarari, P.S- Piplawan, DistrictPatna. ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners :
Mr. Patanjali Rishi, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Paras Nath, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 08-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. In the present case, the petitioners seek bail in connection with Piplawan (Pitwas) P.S. Case No. 96 of 2025 dated 01.07.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 352, 351(2) and 351(3) read with Section 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners and other co-accused persons assaulted the elder brother of the
2/4 informant and when the father of the informant tried to save him, he was also assaulted and a number of injuries were caused to all the three persons, i.e., informant, his father and his elder brother. The occurrence took place in the background of threat extended by the petitioners to withdraw the case filed by the informant's side.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the allegations are completely false and concocted. Nothing about the previous case has been mentioned. The informant is not an eyewitness and it appears that he subsequently reached the spot. The statement of the father of the informant was not recorded, though he appears to be an eyewitness. There was no intention to cause death and though there is allegation that the assailants were carrying fire-arms, none of them used the same. Learned counsel next submits that petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4 are having antecedent of two cases while petitioner no. 2 is having antecedent of one case and all the petitioners are on bail in all the said cases. Learned counsel lastly submits that petitioners is in custody since 31.10.2025.
5. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State as well as the learned counsel for the informant oppose the submission made on behalf of the petitioners. Learned counsel
3/4 for the informant submits that the informant, his brother and his father all received injuries in the hands of the petitioners and other co-accused persons. There is specific allegation against the petitioners of hitting the brother of the informant with butt of rifle and pistol.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the nature of allegation and period of custody of the petitioners, the petitioners, above-named, are directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-VI, Danapur, Patna / concerned Court, in connection with Piplawan (Pitwas) P.S. Case No. 96 of 2025, subject to the condition laid down under Section 480(3) of the B.N.S.S. and other following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioners.
(ii) The petitioners will remain present on each and every date fixed by the court below, if so required by the learned trial Court.
(iii) In case of non-appearance of the petitioners
4/4 on single date or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J) Shahnawaz/- U T