Pramod Singh @ Prabhat Ranjan Vs The State of Bihar

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14111 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-145 Year-2025 Thana- MAHESHKHUNT District- Khagaria

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Pramod Singh @ Prabhat Ranjan S/o- Late Tarni Singh R/v- Babu Bagicha PS- Maheshkhunt District-Khagaria

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nitin Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Bhanu Pratap Singh, Adv. ======================================================

¶9

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶10

4 18-05-2026

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶12

APP for the State through video conferencing.

¶13

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in

¶14

connection with Maheshkunth P.S. Case No. 145 of 2025 for the offence punishable under sections 126(2), 329(2), 103(1), 3(5) of the BNS lodged on 17.09.2025 by the informant.

¶15

As per the prosecution case, the allegation against the petitioner is that on 14.09.2025, he along with other accused persons took the father-in-law of the informant to their home on the pretext of uprooting the Moringa trees but they assaulted her father-in-law by means of brick, stone, rod, lathi and stick and further threatened to kill the entire family if the incident would be disclosed. It is further alleged that in the previous night, he took his food and in the morning he was found dead. Accordingly, the FIR.

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14111 of 2026(4) dt.18-05-2026 2/5

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner along with his family members have falsely been implicated in this case due to oblique motive. The allegation against this petitioner is that he took forcefully the father-in-law of the informant to his home and beaten him mercilessly by means of brick, stone, rod, lathi and stick on 14.09.2025. It is the case of the petitioner that the incident has taken place on 14.09.2025 while the deceased is said to have found dead on 16.09.2025 in the morning and the FIR has been instituted on 17.09.2026 and there is no plausible explanation for such delay in lodging of the FIR. Most surprisingly, the deceased was not taken to the hospital or any doctor for treating the so-called injury caused by this petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that from the postmortem report, it would be evident that no external injuries have been found on the person of the deceased which is in direct conflict and in contradiction to the allegations as levelled in the FIR. The postmortem report further reveals that the cause of death is haemorrhage and shock which led to CRF due to the injuries. Thereafter, a four members Medical Board was also constituted in the matter on 15.12.2025 and the Medical Board in its report stated “that since body has been cremated, they are unable to

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14111 of 2026(4) dt.18-05-2026 3/5

¶19

discuss findings written on P.M. report but the injuries mentioned in P.M. report could be possible but with these injuries, patient can die within minutes to hours”.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the postmortem report and the report of the Medical Board submits that had the petitioner caused the injuries of that magnitude, the deceased must have died within minutes to hours, but the deceased died after two days of the incident which took place on 14.09.2025 while the deceased died on 16.09.2025. As a result of which, it can be inferred that the petitioner’s assault is not the reason of his death rather it would have been something else too, because as per the informant, the deceased had taken meal in the night of the date of incident and was seen moving the in the village as per para-8 of the case diary and the fact of taking meal has been supported by some of the witnesses as mentioned in the case diary. Nothing incriminating and specific has been found even in the case diary. Petitioner has got clean antecedent and he deserves the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶21

Learned APP opposes the prayer for anticipatory

¶22

bail.

¶23

Considering the submissions of the parties and the facts mentioned in the postmortem report as well as in the report of Medical Board, no external injury has been found on the

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14111 of 2026(4) dt.18-05-2026 4/5

¶25

person of the deceased, the incident took place on 14.09.2025 while the deceased died on 16.09.2025 in his home, the FIR has been lodged after much unexplained delay and this petitioner has got clean antecedent, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶26

Let the petitioner, above named, 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) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Khagaria in connection with aforesaid PS Case, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS as well as the following conditions:-

¶27

(i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;

¶28

(ii) the petitioner(s) 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 his/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;

¶29

(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the

¶30

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14111 of 2026(4) dt.18-05-2026

¶31

5/5

¶32

witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;

¶33

(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of his/their bail bonds.

¶34

(Ajit Kumar, J)

¶35

perwez

¶36

U T

Pramod Singh @ Prabhat Ranjan v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Singh @ Prabhat Ranjan v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Mantu Bajpeyee Vs The State of Bihar

Anita Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Raman Mahto @ Raman Kumar Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Ashfaqe Alam @ Asfaqe Vs The State of Bihar

Tiwari Ray Vs The State of Bihar