IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2316 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-221 Year-2025 Thana- SIKANDRA District- Jamui ======================================================

Ramsvrup Yadav @ Ramswaroop Yadav, S/o- Late Degan Yadav, R/v-

Dhadhaur Ps- Sikandra Dist- Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary, APP For the Informant : Mr. Umesh Prasad, Advocate.

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

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER

3 24-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sikandra P.S. Case No. 221 of 2025 registered for the offences under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 352, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. As per the prosecution case, all the named accused persons are said to have assaulted the informant and his family members and on account of such assault, the mother of the informant died.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was on account of some land dispute that the said incident occurred. It has further been submitted that even if the allegations are taken on its face value, the specific allegation of assault on the head of the mother of the informant is upon Arvind Yadav and Bharat Yadav and there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner and others. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court towards the postmortem report and from perusal of the same, it would appear that there is one lacerated wound found on the top of the skull and apart from that there is no other injury found on the body of the deceased. It has next been submitted that though the allegation is also of assault on the informant and on others, there is no injury report on record to substantiate such claim. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedent.

5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and have stated that the petitioner was among the accused persons who have brutally assaulted the informant and mother of the informant, who succumbed to the injuries and therefore, the petitioner should not be granted liberty of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and taking into account the fact that there are no specific allegations levelled against the petitioner of assault upon the mother of the informant, the deceased, let the petitioner above named be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Sikandra P.S. Case No. 221 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S. as well as subject to the following conditions:-

(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his close relative.

(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present in Court on each date of the trial.

(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates, or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned.

(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in similar nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond.

(v) The learned Court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the