Shiv Kumar Rawani @ Shiv Kahar vs The State of Bihar

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 3407

PATNA HIGH COURT
MR. PARTHA SARTHY, J
Shiv Kumar Rawani @ Shiv Kahar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76262 of 2025 | Complaint Case No.-1726 Year-2022

Important Points

The court emphasized the consideration of an individual's lack of criminal history and length of custody in bail determinations.

Subject

Criminal Law - Bail Application

Act Referred

Indian Penal Code: S.323, S.341, S.504, S.354

Headnote

The petitioners sought regular bail under sections 323, 341, 504, and 354 of the Indian Penal Code, contending false implication and asserting no prior criminal record. The opposition underscored direct allegations against the petitioners. The Court concluded that given the lack of prior criminal history and duration of custody, bail was appropriate.

Result: Both petitioners granted bail.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Parijat Saurav, Advocate, Mr. Ritesh Abhishek, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP, Mr. Nagadeo Choubey, Advocate

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

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

2. The petitioners have preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Complaint Case no.1726 (C) of the 2022 registered under sections 323, 341, 504 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code .

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioners are said to have misbehaved and of having assaulted the daughter of the complainant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. The parties are neighbours. After enquiry in the learned Court below, cognizance has been taken under sections 354 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code , which are both triable, by a Magistrate. The petitioners have no criminal antecedent and are in custody since

20.8.2025.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P for the State and learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submits that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioners of having misbehaved with the daughter of the informant. The same has been supported by the complainant and witnesses in course of enquiry. As such it is prayed that the prayer for bail be rejected.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioners in the complaint, the material that has transpired in course of enquiry, the petitioners being in custody for 5 months since 20.8.2025 and not having any criminal antecedent, both the petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail in connection with Complaint Case no.1726 (C) of the 2022 on each of them furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, Bhojpur, Ara.

(Partha Sarthy, J)