Patna High CourtCR. MISC./83994/2025bail granted

Kanhaiya Kumar @ Lolu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-11Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83994 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-194 Year-2025 Thana- SURYAGARHA District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Kanhaiya Kumar @ Lolu Kumar S/o Ranjeet Singh @ Ranjeet Kumar Singh R/o Village- Nandpur, P.S.- Suryagarha, Distt- Lakhisarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Raghwendra Pratap Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 11-02-2026 Heard Mr. Raghwendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned APP for the State.

2. This application for grant of anticipatory bail arises out of Surajgarha Police Station Case No. 194 of 2025 dated 18.06.2025, disclosing the offence under Sections 126(2), 329(3), 109(1), 303(2) and 3(5) of the BNS lodged by the informant, Sunil Kumar.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that the accused persons including the petitioner herein came and assaulted the informant as also the members of his family. It is further stated that while Sonu Kumar and Raju Kumar caught hold of the hand of his son, Kanhaiya Kumar @ Lolu Kumar (petitioner) is said to have assaulted with the butt of a pistol. On the orders of one Ashok Singh, the petitioner resorted to firing, however, the shot missed. Accordingly, the present FIR.

2/4

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR and he has falsely been implicated in this case and on the basis of old enmity between the parties due to village politics. He further submits that during course investigation, it has come on record that the fire arm injury which is sustained by the injured, Amresh Kumar was inflicted by one Vickey Singh, who had opened fire and this petitioner though, has been implicated in this case but there is no allegation of overt-act against him. It has next been submitted that similarly placed co-accused person who is said to be the father of this petitioner namely, Ranjeet Singh @ Ranjeet Kumar Singh has been granted anticipatory bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.08.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 56100 of 2025 (Annexure-P/3) and the petitioner has got clean antecedent.

5. On the other hand, learned APP by referring to the case diary does not dispute the submission of the petitioner.

6. After having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that nothing incriminating against this petitioner has been found during course of investigation, allegation of opening fire arm is against one Vickey Singh and similarly situated co-accused, as

3/4 mentioned above, has been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court and the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent, this Court is inclined to grant the petitioner the privilege of anticipatory bail.

7. This application for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, allowed.

8. Let the petitioner, named above, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the Court below within six weeks from today, 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 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhisarai, in connection with aforesaid Police Station Case subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the B.N.S.S. 2023, as well as the 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 date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his bail bond by the Trial Court itself;

4/4 (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 (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 his bail bonds.

(Ajit Kumar, J) perwez U T