Ram Babu Paswan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5105 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-186 Year-2025 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Ram Babu Paswan S/O Chandrika Paswan R/O Vill.- Runni, Ward No.- 04,P.S- Runni Saidpur, Dist- Sitamarhi, Pin Code-843328 (Bihar) ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Ramesh Paswan S/O Dahaur Paswan R/O Vill.- Runni, Ward No.- 04,P.SRunni Saidpur, Dist- Sitamarhi, Pin Code-843328 (Bihar) ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Uday Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Ms. Usha Kumari 1, SPP For the Resp. No. 2 :

Mr. Adarsh Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-04-2026 Heard Mr. Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Adarsh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 as well as Ms. Usha Kumari 1, learned Spl.P.P. for the State.

2. This is an appeal under Sections 14(A)(2) against refusal of the prayer for regular bail by order dated 15.10.2025 passed by the learned Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judgecum-Special Judge, SC/ST (PoA) Act, Sitamarhi (District & Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Sitamarhi) in connection with Runni Saidpur P.S. Case No. 186 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 14.05.2025 registered under Sections 103(1) & 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes

2/4 and Scheduled Tribes Act (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

3. According to the prosecution case, all the accused persons including this appellant over a rent dispute have assaulted to the father of the informant due to which received injuries.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that due to petty dispute the present occurrence has taken place. Although the appellant is named in the FIR but there is no specific allegation of assault or overt act attributed against him rather there is general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons including this appellant. He further submits that the police, after investigation, submitted charge sheet against the appellant. The appellant is in custody since 27.06.2025.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 as well as learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case that the appellant has clean antecedent and there is no specific allegation against the appellant rather there is

3/4 general and omnibus allegation against him, 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 Court of 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST (PoA) Act, Sitamarhi (District & Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, Sitamarhi) in connection with Runni Saidpur P.S. Case No. 186 of 2025, with other following conditions:- i. 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. ii. If the appellant tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iii. 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 have 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

4/4 shall not be 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) Vanisha/- U T