SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 3403

PATNA HIGH COURT
Mr. Partha Sarthy, J
Niraj Kumar @ Niraj Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73436 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellant/Petitioner: Mr. Natraj Verma
For the Respondent: Ms. Renu Kumari

A bail application can be granted despite serious allegations if no injury is sustained by the informant and the petitioner has been in prolonged custody.

Headnote:Relevant laws include sections 109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case where he is accused of throwing a bomb at the informant but no injury is reported. The court determined the allegations do not justify continuing custody given the absence of injury and the duration of detention. The important questions included whether the absence of an injury report impacts the bail application. The court reasoned that lack of serious harm and prolonged custody warranted bail. The petitioner is to be released on bail upon payment of Rs.10,000/-.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

3 21-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Mahua P.S. Case no.434 of 2025, registered under section 109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act .

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that having heard halla, he came out of his house. He saw the three named accused persons including the petitioner herein who hurled bomb at the informant and escaped.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. There is ongoing dispute between the parties with several cases pending between them as mentioned in the order of the learned Court below as also CWJC no.14475 of 2007 and LPA no.2117 of 2015. No injury has been caused to the informant. The petitioner is in custody since 17.7.2025 and charge-sheet has been submitted in the case.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State who submits that not only the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. but there is direct allegation against him of having hurled bomb along with two others on the informant. However, it is not disputed by learned A.P.P. that there is no injury report of the informant on record.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner in the F.I.R., pending dispute between the parties as mentioned in the order of the learned trial Court, no injury report of the informant being available on record, the petitioner being in custody for 6 months since 17.7.2025 and charge-sheet having been submitted in the case, the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in connection with Mahua P.S. Case no.434 of 2025, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub Judge-V –cum– Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Vaishali, Hajipur.

(Partha Sarthy, J)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top