Praduman Rai @ Anshu Rai @ Pradum Kumar v. The State of Bihar Bihar
Case at a glance
Outcome
Withdrawn
Accordingly, this case is dismissed as withdrawn
Provisions considered
Judgment
Mukesh Kumar son of Jogi Rai Resident of Village- Rewa Mahangu Tola, P.S.-Maner District-Patna
Nitesh Kumar @ Nitish Kumar son of Jogi Rai Resident of Village- Rewa Mahangu Tola, P.S.-Maner District-Patna
Basanti Devi Wife of Jogi Rai Resident of Village- Rewa Mahangu Tola, P.S.-Maner District-Patna Jogi Rai S/O late Ram Lagan Rai Resident of Village- Rewa Mahangu Tola, P.S.-Maner District-Patna The State of Bihar Bihar Versus ... ... Petitioner/s ... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : : For the Petitioner/s For the Opposite Party/s : ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER Mr.Usha Kumari Singh Mr.Uday Pratap Singh 3 23-07-2025 At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and is granted permission to withdraw this application on behalf of petitioner No. 1 (Praduman Rai) and petitioner No. 3 ( Nitesh Kumar).
2. Permission is granted.
Operative part
3. Accordingly, this case is dismissed as withdrawn against petitioner No. 1 (Praduman Rai) and petitioner No. 3 ( Nitesh Kumar).
Now, this case is confined only to petitioners No. 2, 4 Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29609 of 2025(3) dt.23-07-2025 and 5.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence under Sections 110/115(2)/117(2)/76/ 303/(2)/329(3)/352/351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S.
The prosecution story in short is that the informant namely Ranjit Kumar alleged that on 14.12.2024 at about 07:00 p.m., all named accused persons including these petitioners came at the house of the informant and assaulted him and his family members.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner No. 2 is own Mausera brother, petitioner No. 4 is own Mausi and petitioner No. 5 is own Mausa of the informant. He further submits that due to property dispute, simple marpit took place in which both the sides sustained injuries. Both the parties are co-villagers. Injuries are simple in nature. Petitioners claim clean antecedent.
Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the bail petition.
Considering the aforesaid facts & circumstances and the fact that specific acquisition of assault is against co-accused Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29609 of 2025(3) dt.23-07-2025 Praduman Rai and Nitesh Kumar and there is general and omnibus allegation of assault against these petitioners, let the above named petitioners No. 2, 4, and 5, in the event of arrest/surrender within a period of eight weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Danapur, Patna, in connection with Maner P.S. Case No. 888/24, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/ Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Saif/- U T
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this case is dismissed as withdrawn
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(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.