Ganga Ram Mandal @ Grangaram Mandal v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4792 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-192 Year-2025 Thana- KORHA District- Katihar ====================================================== Ganga Ram Mandal @ Grangaram Mandal S/O Bonu Mandal @ Baldev Mandal @ Baldeo Mandal Resident of Village/ Mohalla- Marwa, P.S- Korha, District- Katihar.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Vina Devi W/O Munna Rishi R/O Village/Mohalla- Marwa, P.S- Korha, Distt.- Katihar.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s :
Mr. Bimal Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent No. 2: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl. P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-06-2026 Heard Mr. Bimal Kumaa, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 and Mr. Sadanand Paswan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as the "SC/ST Act") against the refusal of prayer for regular bail vide order dated 15.10.2025 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevent ion of Atrocities) Act, Katihar in connection with Korha P.S. Case No. 192 of 2025, F.I.R. dated
2/4 10.08.2025 registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, Section 27 of the Arms Act read with Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2), (va) of the S.C./S.T. Act.
3. Allegation against the appellant is that he opened fire on the husband of the informant causing injuring to him.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has clean antecedent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It appears from the F.I.R. that due to some petty dispute the present occurrence had taken place. Although there is specific allegation against the appellant that he fired upon the husband of the informant and he has received bullet injury in his left thigh but the final injury report of the injured person (informant's husband) suggests that the injury is simple in nature. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the appellant and the appellant is in custody since 03.09.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 (Informant) as well as learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and submits that there is direct and specific allegation of firing attributed against the appellant and husband of the informant has received bullet injury.
3/4
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as period of custody, let the appellant, above named, 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 District and Additional Sessions Judge-I cum Special Judge Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Katihar in connection with Korha P.S. Case No. 192 of 2025, with the following conditions :-
(1) Appellant shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
(2) If the appellant tampers with the evidence or the witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
(3) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the appellant and in case at any stage, it is found that the appellant has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the appellant. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be
4/4 delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and this appeal stands allowed.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Ibrar//- U t