Prince Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90565 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-200 Year-2025 Thana- MALI District- Aurangabad ====================================================== 1.
Prince Kumar S/o Vinod Singh Resident of Village- Jitpur, P.O.- Jaihind Tendua, Nabinagar, P.S.- Mali, District- Aurangabad, Bihar, 824301 2.
Vinod Singh S/o Bindeshwari Singh Resident of Village- Jitpur, P.O.- Jaihind Tendua, Nabinagar, P.S.- Mali, District- Aurangabad, Bihar, 824301 ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Dayanand Singh, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 15-01-2026 Heard Mr. Dayanand Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP representing the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Mali P.S. Case No. 200 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 352, 351(2), 351(3) and 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, lodged on 19.10.2025 by the informant, Manoj Singh.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that in an inebriated state, the petitioner no.1, Prince Kumar wanted payment of sprite and upon refusal, allegation is of assaulting causing injuries on his hand and leg. Allegation of snatching money is also there, he was taken to Nabinagar
2/4 Referral Hospital which followed the F.I.R.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that a minor scuffle took place, there is case and counter case, both the father and son have been implicated in the present matter. Further submission is that the injuries have been found to be simple in nature and last submission is that without accepting the allegation or outcome of the present petition, the petitioner no.1, Prince Kumar intends to pay Rs.5,000/- to the informant towards treatment by Demand Draft issued by the local branch of the State Bank of India/any Nationalized Bank to be submitted at the time of execution of bail bond.
5. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that as per the allegation, the petitioner no.1, Prince Kumar was in inebriated state.
6. Considering the submissions of the parties as also that there is case and counter case, both the petitioners are father and son, the injuries have been found to be simple in nature, in that background, this Court is inclined to extend them the privilege of anticipatory bail subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- to the informant by the petitioner no.1, Prince Kumar as undertaken by the learned counsel for the petitioners through Demand Draft issued by the local branch of the State Bank of
3/4 India/any Nationalized Bank to be submitted at the time of execution of the bail bond and the same shall be handed over to the informant after checking his/her credentials.
7. Let the petitioners be released on bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Aurangabad, in connection with Mali P.S. Case No. 200 of 2025 subject to the following conditions:- (i) one of the bailor should be the family member/relative of the petitioner who shall provide official document (Aadhar Card/Voter Id/Driving License/Pan Card) to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioners 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 their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioners shall appear before the concerned police station every month for next six months to mark their attendance and at the end of the period a certificate be submitted before the Trial Court failing which the State shall be at liberty
4/4 to take steps for cancellation of bail bonds; (iv) the petitioners 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;
(v) the petitioners shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of bail bonds. (Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U T