IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10627 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-261 Year-2025 Thana- RANIYATALAB District- Patna ======================================================

Nitish Kumar, Son of Kumesh Yadav, Resident of Village - Jitan Chhapara, P.S. - Ranitalab, District - Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. Uday Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Humayou Ahmad Khan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

2 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Ranitalab P.S. Case No. 261 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 191(1)(2), 190, 329(3)(4), 109, 117(2), 303(2) and 352 of B.N.S.

3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the petitioner along with others entered in the house of the informant being armed with weapon. It is specifically alleged that the petitioner has assaulted with iron rod on the head of the informant due to which he received bleeding head injury. After that as he got fallen away, all the accused persons assaulted with lathi and iron rod.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has given one iron rod blow on the head of the informant and from perusal of the injury report it will transpire that the informant has received one lacerated wound on the parietal region of the head. That injury has been opined to be grievous. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the injury is grievous but there is no repetition of blow by the petitioner. It is alleged that other accused persons have assaulted as the informant fell down. Petitioner is having criminal antecedent of one case in which he is on bail. He is languishing in judicial custody since

29.11.2025.

5. Learned APP appearing for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the application for bail.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned J.M.F.C., Danapur in connection with Ranitalab P.S. Case No.

261 of 2025.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

lata/-

U T