Saryug Singh @ Saryu Singh Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 12-03-2026

¶12

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶13

learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶14

The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Mali P.S. Case No.39 of 2025, F.I.R dated 11.02.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 329(3), 109, 303(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶15

According to prosecution case, on 11.02.2025 alleging that on 05.02.2025 at about 9:00 A.M., while boring work was being carried out at the PACS godown at Dhibrapar, Anshul Raj had gone there to supervise the work. During this time, Krishna Singh, Mukhiya Kumar, Parvesh Singh, Prakash Kumar Bari, Shyam Narayan Bari, Guddu Singh, Nitesh Kumar, Vicky Singh, Bidwesh Singh, Gopal Singh, Naresh Singh,

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15556 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026 2/4

¶17

Sarjug Singh and 5–7 unknown persons arrived and obstructed the construction work, stating that the godown work would not be allowed. When Anshul Raj informed them that he had a No Objection Certificate from the competent authority, they began abusing him. It is further alleged that Krishna Singh assaulted him on the head with a sword and Prakash Kumar fired from a pistol while threatening that the godown work should not continue. Consequently, the FIR was lodged.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is specific allegation of assault or overt act against Krishna Singh and the allegations levelled against all the accused persons, including the petitioner, are general and omnibus in nature. It has next been submitted that the co-accused persons, namely, Parvesh Sinha, Bidesh Singh, Naresh Singh and Mukhiya have been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail vide order dated 08.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.60756 of 2025. It has further been submitted that there is a delay of 7 days in lodging of F.I.R., for which there is no valid explanation. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedent.

¶19

Learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail application but does not dispute the

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15556 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026 3/4

¶21

fact with regard to specific allegation of overt act having been levelled against Krishna Singh.

¶22

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that there is no specific allegation of assault or overt act against the petitioner rather the allegations are general and omnibus, there is a delay of 7 days in lodging of F.I.R., for which there is no valid explanation and the co-accused persons have already been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail and the petitioner has clean antecedent. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶23

Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his/her 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad, in connection with Mali P.S. Case No.39 of 2025, 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:-

¶24

(i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide

¶25

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15556 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026 4/4

¶26

official document/personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;

¶27

(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every

¶28

date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her/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 witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;

¶30

(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 their bail bonds.

¶31

(Ajit Kumar, J)

¶32

sharun/-

¶33

U T

Saryug Singh @ Saryu Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saryug Singh @ Saryu Singh 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

Raj Kumari Devi Vs The State of Bihar

Anil Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Vijay Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Dharamjeet Singh @ Dharjit Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Jasim Ahmad @ Jashim Alam Vs The State of Bihar

Ramdev Sah Vs The State of Bihar