Patna High Court
CR. MISC./59178/2026 of Chhotu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar on 19 August 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59178 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2026 Thana- DEV District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Chhotu Kumar S/O Saryu Singh @ Sarju Singh Resident of Village- Datu Bigha, P.S- Deo, Dist.-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59178 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2026 Thana- DEV District- Aurangabad ======================================================
Chhotu Kumar S/O Saryu Singh @ Sarju Singh Resident of Village- Datu Bigha, P.S- Deo, Dist.- Aurangabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr. Pramendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Rajendra Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
19-08-2026 Heard Mr. Pramendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajendra Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Deo P.S. Case No. 02 of 2026, F.I.R. dated 03.01.2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 74, 351(2), 352 & 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.
3. As per the First Information Report, on 30.12.2025, the informant, aged 22, was proceeding to Deo Bazar with Anita Devi and Asha Devi when the petitioner allegedly pulled her by the hair, assaulted her, and injured her nose. Her intervening relatives were abused. Subsequently, threats were allegedly issued by the petitioner’s parents.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He next submits that petitioner and the informant are agnates to each other and due to some previous dispute the present occurrence has taken place. It appears from the FIR that date of the occurrence was on 30.12.2025 but the FIR was lodge on 03.01.2026 i.e. after delay of about four days, after thought, only to falsely implicate the petitioner in the present case. He further submits that as per allegation in the FIR the petitioner assaulted the informant and the informant received injury but the injury report of the informant suggest that injury inflicted upon her is simple in nature.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner is named in the FIR and he assaulted the informant and apart petitioner carries two criminal antecedents other than the present one but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph-3 of the bail application that the petitioner is on bail in the said matters.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, 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 the learned C.J.M., Aurangabad in connection with Deo P.S. Case No. 02 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:-
i. Petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bond in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
Suruchi/- (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) U