✦ Patna High Court

Rakesh Kumar v. The State of Bihar

AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 2941 of 2025SATYAVRAT VERMA3 min read

Case at a glance

Outcome

Allowed

The application stands allowed

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 33. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner nos.1, 2 and 4 are persons with clean antecedent Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2941 of 2025(2) dt.05-03-2025 and petitioner no.3 has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges that on 07.04.2019 at…
  • Para 77. The application stands allowed. (Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T

Judgment

3. Alok Singh S/O Jawahar Singh R/O Village- Khaira, P.S.- Barun, District- Aurangabad

4. Munna Kumar S/O Umesh Singh R/O Village- Khaira, P.S.- Barun, District- Aurangabad The State of Bihar Versus ... ... Petitioner/s ... ... Opposite Party/s

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA Mr.Anil Kumar Sinha Ms.Nirmala Kumari ORAL ORDER 2 05-03-2025

1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2.

The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 186, 333, 379, 353, 307, 420, 411, 504, 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 40 of the Bihar Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1972 and Section 15 of the Environment Protection Act.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner nos.1, 2 and 4 are persons with clean antecedent Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2941 of 2025(2) dt.05-03-2025 and petitioner no.3 has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges that on 07.04.2019 at about 5.55 P.M., the informant received secret information about illegal mining of sand. Accordingly, he reached the place of occurrence where 19 named and 150 unknown accused persons including the petitioners were present and they started assaulting the police personnel with iron rod, lathi bricks and stones and helped the loader machine and trucks to get away from the place of occurrence.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is further submitted that apart from petitioner no.4, none of the petitioners were named in the FIR and subsequently, they have been implicated during the course of investigation.

5.

Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that the case is of the Year 2019 and the petitioners are seeking bail in the Year 20-25 on which the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that petitioners were not even aware that they have been implicated nor police at any point of time made any endeavour to arrest the petitioners. It is further submitted that even police did not apply for process under Section 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. which Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2941 of 2025(2) dt.05-03-2025 amply demonstrates that even police was aware that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case.

6.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners, above-named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks, are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Aurangabad in connection with Barun P. S. Case No.86 of 2019, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.

Operative part

7.

The application stands allowed. (Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: The application stands allowed

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 147, 149, 186, 307, 323, 333, 341, 353, 379, 411, 420, 427, 504, 506; Environment Protection Act — s. 15; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 82, 83, 438(2).

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Patna High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 2941 of 2025). ← Search more judgments