Rajeev Kumar @ Rajiv Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84361 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-158 Year-2025 Thana- SURSAND District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== 1.
Rajeev Kumar @ Rajiv Kumar Son of Ram Pratap Rai Resident of village - Nimahi, P.S.- Bajpatti, District - Sitamarhi. 2.
Nandkishor Rai Son of Late Bhulur Rai @ Late Sindeshwar Rai Resident of village - Sundarpur, Ward No.- 4, P.S.- Bhittha, Sursand, District - Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners :
Mr. Pramod Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Shahabuddin Azeem @ S. Azeem, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S..
3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that on 30.03.2025 at about 6:30 PM, son of informant went missing. On 31.03.2025 at about 10 PM, co-accused Anil Rai informed the informant on mobile phone that his son has been assaulted by all the F.I.R. named accused persons, including these petitioners, for entering into house of co-accused Jagdish Rai. In the morning, when informant went to Community Health Centre, Sursand, he found the dead body of his son. Informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84361 of 2025(2) dt.09-02-2026 2/2 alleges that all the F.I.R. named accused persons, including these petitioners, committed murder of his son by assaulting him.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence. Informant is not an eye witness of the occurrence and only because of village politics, petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Petitioners claim clean antecedents.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and submitted that petitioners are named in the F.I.R. with specific accusation that they, along with other accused persons, assaulted son of informant due to which he died.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, specific and direct nature of accusation and gravity of offence, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashank/- U T