Purshottam Singh @ Purushottam Singh Vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19706 of 2026

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-206 Year-2025 Thana- SHIKARGANJ District- East Champaran

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

Purshottam Singh @ Purushottam Singh S/o Late Indradev Singh Resident of Village- Bhagwatpur Bhaluahiya, P.O.- Rupahara, P.S.- Shikarganj, DistrictEast Champaran

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP For the Informant : Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate ======================================================

¶7

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶8

2 25-03-2026

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶10

counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

¶11

The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under sections 109, 303(2), 126(2), 115(2), 74, 76, 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of BNS.

¶12

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has pushed the informant on ground due to which, she slipped from stair and has received injury.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is only allegation against the petitioner is that of pushing the informant due to which she slipped from stair. It has further been

¶14

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19706 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026 2/3

¶15

submitted that from perusal of the order of the learned trial court, it will transpire that there is no description of injury of the informant. He has also submitted that petitioner is having five criminal antecedents and only on the basis of this ground, his bail was rejected by learned trial court. There is land dispute between the parties and due to that, this occurrence has taken place. Petitioner is aged about 60 years whereas the informant is aged about 70 years. Moreover, the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 08.01.2026.

¶16

Learned APP appearing for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent before the learned trial court due to which his bail was rejected by learned trial court. He has further submitted that learned trial court has given liberty to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

¶17

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with Shikarganj P.S. Case No. 206 of 2025 on furnishing bail bond of

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19706 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026 3/3

¶19

Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned C.J.M., East Champaran at Motihari.

¶20

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

¶21

shubham/-

¶22

U T

Purshottam Singh @ Purushottam Singh v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purshottam Singh @ Purushottam 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

Gajendra Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Ravi Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Krishna Kumar Mandal @ Krishna Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Santosh Rajaram Mohite @ Santosh Rajaram Mahite @ Santosh Mahite Vs The State of Bihar

Shivam Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Baby devi Vs The State of Bihar