Shaligram Singh @ Rohit Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5161 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-173 Year-2025 Thana- ITARHI District- Buxar ====================================================== Shaligram Singh @ Rohit Kumar Singh S/O Birendra Singh R/O VillageDharmpura, P.S.- Itarhi, District- Buxar ... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Arvind Kumar Paswan, Present posted as S.I. of Itarhi P.S. and Dist.- Buxar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s :
Mr. Aditya Nath Pandey For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Sadanand Paswan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 10-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-I-cum-Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Buxar in ABP No. 1232 of 2025 arising out of Itarhi P.S. Case No. 173 of 2025 registered for the offence under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 109, 352, 351(2), 3(5), 121(2) and 132 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, by which the prayer of the appellant for anticipatory bail was rejected.
3. The prosecution case, as alleged in the First Information Report, is that the appellant along with other coaccused persons assaulted police personnel in discharge of their
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5161 of 2025(3) dt.10-04-2026 2/2 official duties.
4. The appellant is named in the FIR, and there are direct and categorical accusations against him that, in connivance with other co-accused persons, he abused, humiliated, and assaulted the informant and other police officials by using caste-based abusive language.
5. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the accusations, the manner of occurrence, and the specific role attributed to the appellant, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellant.
6. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, and the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant stands rejected. (Sandeep Kumar, J) Shishir/- U T