CR. MISC./36862/2026 of Shiv Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar on 19 August 2026

ORAL ORDER

19-08-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of two cases and the informant alleges he received an information on 24.07.2025 at 02:25 PM that dacoity has been committed at the house of Raj kumar, accordingly the informant reached the place of occurrence along with the force and saw that the house of vandalized and blood was found plattered on the verandah, further Rajesh (son of the Raj kumar) disclosed that 10-12 unknown accused had come and committed dacoity after locking the family members in a room, further the informant traced the blood stains and found a dead body lying in the field of Raj kumar, but neither the villagers nor Rajesh could identify the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36862 of 2026(3) dt.19-08-2026

dead body, as the deceased was a person from outside the village.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that for the same occurrence, two FIRs was instituted, the second case being Andhrathadhi PS Case No. 111 of 2025, it is submitted that the said case was instituted with an allegation of dacoity, while the instant FIR has been instituted under Section 103 of the BNS, it is next submitted that petitioner has been granted the privilege regular bail in Andhrathadhi PS Case No. 111 of 2025 by an order dated 02.05.2026 in BP No. 182 of 2026, it is next submitted that petitioner is in custody since 16.04.2026 in the instant case and his name transpired based on confessional statement of apprehended accused and charge sheet has been submitted, it is also submitted that petitioner during the period of his incarceration was never put on TIP, it is thus submitted that entire implication is based on confessional statement which does not have any evidentiary value, it is also submitted that if privilege of regular bail is granted, the petitioner will not abscond rather will co-operate in the trial to prove his innocence.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36862 of 2026(3) dt.19-08-2026

Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Andhrathadhi PS Case No. 111 of 2025.

7. One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his father Ram Udgar Singh.

8. However, it is made clear that if the learned trial court comes to a conclusion that the petitioner after his release is trying to delay the framing of charge or after framing of charge is trying to delay, the trial in any manner, the learned trial court in both the conditions shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.

9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to make rectification at Para-6 of the regular bail application and in the prayer portion, it is submitted that inadvertently it has been pleaded ACJM -III Jhanjharpur (Madhubani) when it ought to have been ACJM-II Jhanjharpur (Madhubani).

10. Permission is accorded.

Nitesh/-

(Satyavrat Verma, J) U T