Dismissed¶20

Raj Kumar Ram @ Rajkumar Bind v. The State Of Bihar

Patna HC9 Feb 2026CR. MISC./71419/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, CR. MISC. No.71419 of 2025, order dated 09-02-2026 by Rudra Prakash Mishra, J: anticipatory bail REJECTED for Raj Kumar Ram @ Rajkumar Bind and Satyam Kumar Bind in Chainpur P.S. Case No. 278/2025 (Kaimur/Bhabua), offences under BNS 2023 Ss.115(2), 126(2), 109, 352, 351(2), 3(5); parity claim based on co-accused bail in Cr. Misc. No. 802026 of 2025 (06.01.2026) did not prevail; liberty to surrender within six weeks and apply for regular bail on own merit.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail refused; however, petitioners may surrender before the learned court below within six weeks and any subsequent regular bail prayer shall be dealt with on its own merit, uninfluenced by this order. ¶20

Raj Kumar Ram @ Rajkumar Bind Vs The State Of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners, who apprehend arrest in Chainpur P.S. Case No. 278 of 2025 instituted for offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶14

Court's answer

Weighing the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is rejected.

¶20

Key takeaways

Protective proviso: if the petitioners surrender before the learned court below within six weeks and pray for regular bail, that application shall be disposed of on its own merit, without being prejudiced by this order.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail - refused. Petitioners (two accused) apprehending arrest in Chainpur P.S. Case No. 278 of 2025, District Kaimur (Bhabua), registered under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 for alleged assault on the informant causing injuries, sought pre-arrest bail. Counsel argued false implication, general and omnibus allegations without any specific overt act, absence of criminal antecedent, and parity with a co-accused already granted anticipatory bail (order dated 06.01.2026 in Cr. Misc. No. 802026 of 2025); learned APP opposed, stating the petitioners assaulted the informant with weapons repeatedly. Considering the facts and circumstances and the nature and gravity of the offence, the High Court (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J.) declined anticipatory bail and rejected the prayer, while allowing surrender within six weeks, with assurance that a regular bail prayer would be disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71419 of 2025

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-278 Year-2025 Thana- CHAINPUR District- Kaimur (Bhabua)

¶3

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

¶4

Raj Kumar Ram @ Rajkumar Bind S/O Vasudeo Bind Resident of villageSherpur, P.S.- Chainpur, District- Kaimur at Bhabua

¶5

Satyam Kumar S/O Rajkumar Bind Resident of village- Sherpur, P.S.Chainpur, District- Kaimur at Bhabua

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajani Kant Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP

¶11

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA

¶12

ORAL ORDER

¶13

3 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

¶14

The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No. 278 of 2025 instituted for the offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109, 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶15

Prosecution case, in short, is that all the accused persons including the petitioners assaulted the informant due to which he sustained injuries.

¶16

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71419 of 2025(3) dt.09-02-2026 2/3

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that general and omnibus allegation has been made against the petitioners. No specific overt act is alleged against the petitioners. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent. The co-accused person has already been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.01.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 802026 of 2025.

¶18

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioners stating that these petitioners assaulted the informant with weapons repeatedly and therefore, they do not deserve to be released on anticipatory bail.

¶19

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature and gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶20