Dharmendra Ram Vs The State of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3341 of 2026

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-364 Year-2025 Thana- DINARA District- Rohtas

====================================================== Shivji Paswan, Son of Late Bikau Paswan, Resident of Village- Belwaiya, P.S.- Dinara, District- Rohtas

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶8

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

¶9

with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 3483 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-364 Year-2025 Thana- DINARA District- Rohtas ======================================================

¶10

Dharmendra Ram, Son of Sukhari Ram 2. Sukhari Ram @ Sukhadi Ram, Son of Late Ramadhar Ram 3. Jay Ram Ram, Son of Bhuar Ram

¶11

Mahabir Ram, Son of Late Bachchu Ram

¶12

Pashuram Ram, Son of Sukhari Ram @ Sukhadi Ram

¶13

Rama Kant Ram, Son of Late Deo Munni Ram

¶14

Ajeet Kumar @ Ajit Kumar, Son of Late Bharosa Ram All are residents of village - Panchauli, P.O. - Bhaluni Dham, P.S. - Dinara, District - Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s

¶15

Versus

¶16

The State of Bihar

¶17

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶18

====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 4374 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-364 Year-2025 Thana- DINARA District- Rohtas ====================================================== Jugesh Kumar Ram, Son of Late Jay Bhagwan Ram, Resident of Village - Balwaiyan, Police Station - Dinara, District - Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 3341 of 2026)

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3341 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026 2/5

¶20

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 3483 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arvind Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Nirmal Kumar Sinha, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 4374 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Uday Chand Prasad, APP ======================================================

¶21

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶22

2 28-01-2026

¶23

Since all these bail petitions arise out of Dinara P.S. Case No. 364 of 2025, as such, they have been taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶24

Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶25

In the present case, the petitioners seek bail in connection with Dinara P.S. Case No. 364 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 121(1), 121(2), 324(5), 132 and 109 of the BNS, 2023.

¶26

As per prosecution case, a mob of 200 persons assembled near Dinara police station and started shouting slogans against the police. Thereafter, they attacked the police station and started damaging articles kept there. They also assaulted the informant, who was only official present in the police station. The informant received injuries in the hands of the attackers.

¶27

It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in

¶28

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3341 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026 3/5

¶29

this case. The allegation against the petitioners and other coaccused persons is that a mob of 200 people assaulted the informant with lathi , danda . However, injuries received by the informant are lacerated wound 1”x1/2”x1/2” over left eye, swelling 2” x 2” on frontal region of head, bruise 4” x 3” on left elbow. Patient was referred for CT Scan as well as X-ray, but the reports have not been annexed and perhaps injuries are all simple in nature. It has further been submitted that if 200 persons attacked the informant, only the injuries mentioned in the FIR would not have caused, rather the informant might have suffered serious injuries. It has further been submitted that the true fact of the case is that Dinara P.S. Case No. 363/2025 was registered on the same day as over land dispute, two groups in the village of the petitioners indulged in fighting and the police came in collusion with the other side and lodged this false case against the petitioners. It has also been submitted that the petitioner of Cr. Misc. No.3341 of 2026 is in custody since 09.09.2025 and is having antecedent of two cases. The petitioners of Cr. Misc. No. 3483 of 2026 are in custody since 16.10.2025 and are having clean antecedent. The petitioner of Cr. Misc. No.4374 of 2026 is in custody since 19.08.2025 and is having antecedent of two cases. The charges have been framed.

¶30

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3341 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026 4/5

¶31

Learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the submission made on behalf of the petitioners. The learned APP submits that the petitioners were part of the mob which attacked the police official in the police station.

¶32

Having regard to the fact and circumstances and submission made on behalf of the parties and considering the nature of allegation and framing of charge against the petitioners and further considering their period of custody, the petitioners are directed to be released on bail, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Bikramganj, Rohtas/concerned court, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 453 of 2025, arising out of Dinara P.S. Case No. 364 of 2025, subject to the conditions mentioned in Section 480 (3) of BNSS and also the following conditions :

¶33

(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the petitioners.

¶34

(ii) The petitioners will remain present on each and every date fixed by the below, if so required by the learned trial court.

¶35

(iii) In case of absence on three

¶36

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3341 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026 5/5

¶37

consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioners will be liable to be cancelled by the court concerned.

¶38

(Arun Kumar Jha, J)