Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Rama Kant Singh vs State Of Bihar on 11 February, 2026
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.829/2026
(@Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.837/2026)
RAMA KANT SINGH Appellant(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the Order passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Patna dated 30-7-2025 in Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No.30622/2025 by which the anticipatory bail
application preferred by the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 – herein
respectively came to be allowed in connection with Bishanpur Police
Station Case No.14 of 2025 registered on 27-1-2025 for the offence
punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 352, 351(2),
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita (for short the, “BNS, 2023”)
respectively.
3. Later in point of time as the injured succumbed to the
injuries, Section 103(1) of the BNS, 2023 (erstwhile Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code (for short, the “IPC”) came to be added.
4. The appellant before us is the son of the deceased. He also
happens to be the original informant. The First Information Report
lodged by the appellant – herein with the concerned Police Station
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2026.02.14
on 27-1-2025 reads thus:-
11:27:38 IST
Reason:
“To
The Hon’ble Officer-in-Charge
2P.S. Bishanpur, Darbhanga
Sir,
With due respect this is to inform that, I Ramakant Singh
alias Sonu S/o Shri Shubh Narayan Singh am the resident of the
village – Gorhiyari, P.S. Bishanpur, District Darbhanga. On
23.01.2025 at about 9.00 AM when I was going to recharge my
mobile, then on the way (1) Rajneesh Kumar Singh alias Aman Kumar
Singh aged 24 years S/o Ratneshwar Singh surrounded me infront of
his house near the bridge and while using abusive and
unparliamentary languages at me tried to kill me while throwing
from the bridge and snatched my mobile and assaulted me by punch.
Somehow I managed to escape and narrated the entire incident to my
father and other family members on which my father and cousin
brother Jai Shankar Prasad Singh and others went to the house of
Ram Singhasan Singh for coercing. While hearing this Ram Singhasan
Singh became very angry and ordered to kill them, upon which
Rajneesh Kumar Singh @ Aman Kumar Singh assaulted on the head of
my father with the butt of pistol and Ratneshwar Singh with the
iron rod and Ram Singhasan Singh also assaulted on the head of my
father. My father fell down on the ground. When Jaishankar Prasad
Singh tried to save him, then Seema Devi and Aarti Devi started
throwing the bricks and stones. Even in the his fallen conditions,
the all the accused persons assaulted on the head of my father
with the rods and hammer and a lot of blood started oozing out
from the mouth and nose of my father. During this period, while
seeing the peoples coming they fled away. In his senseless
condition. I brought my father alongwith my family members to
DMCH, Darbhanga at 10.00 pm for treatment but seeing his critical
condition they referred him to Patna for better treatment. When I
reached Muzaffarpur, then his condition had worsened, hence he was
taken to Prasad Clinic Muzaffarpur but the Doctors
there also seeing his critical condition suggested to take him to
Patna. On 24.01.2025 at 4’O clock day he was admitted in ‘Samay
Hosptia’ Patna, where his brain surgery has been conducted. He is
struggling with life and death on ventilator in ICU.
Administration has been informed about the incident. My snatched
mobile is Realme-C35, Seam No.7488807358. Due to the previous
enmity, they tried to kill.
Therefore, it is humbly requested from the Hon’ble Sir that
appropriate legal action be taken against the guilty persons. For
this I would be grateful to the Hon’ble Sir.”
5. It appears that in all six persons have been named as accused
in the FIR inclusive of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively
before us. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 apprehending arrest prayed
for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court
declined to grant them anticipatory bail.
3
6. In such circumstances, they went before the High Court.
7. The High Court accepted their plea and granted them
anticipatory bail.
8. The High Court while granting anticipatory bail observed in
para 6 as under:-
“6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is
no specific allegation of assault against these petitioners and
specific allegation of assault is against co-accused person,
namely, Ratneshwar Singh and there is case and counter case
between the parties and there is also land dispute between the
parties for which one Title Suit is pending between the parties,
let the petitioners, above named, in the event of arrest or
surrender before the court below within a period of thirty days
from the date of receipt of the order, be released on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) each
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Darbhanga in connection
with Bishanpur P.S. Case No. 14 of 2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:-
i. Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the
court and shall remain physically present as directed by the
court and on their absence on two consecutive dates without
sufficient reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the
Court below.
ii. If the petitioners tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty
to move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed
their criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step
for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However,
the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned
order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.”
9. The appellant, being the son of the deceased, is here before
us with the present appeal being aggrieved by the grant of
anticipatory bail to the two accused persons i.e. the Respondent
Nos.2 and 3 respectively before us.
4
10. We heard Mr. Devendra Kumar Singh, the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, Mr. Divyansh Mishra, the learned
counsel appearing for the State and Mr. Ashish Giri, the learned
Senior counsel appearing for the accused persons.
11. The High Court should have been mindful of the fact that the
accused persons are alleged to have been involved in a serious
crime like murder. We do not say for a moment that in connection
with an offence of murder, Court should not grant anticipatory
bail”.
12. However, the principles governing grant of anticipatory bail
are quite different compared to the principles governing grant of
regular bail.
13. Anticipatory bail may be granted by the Court even in a case
of murder provided the Court is convinced that the accused persons
praying for anticipatory bail have been falsely implicated due to
some personal vendetta, political rivalry etc. The accused praying
for anticipatory bail has to make out more than a prima facie case
of false implication.
14. Grant of anticipatory bail is not a matter of course. Here is
a case where the accused persons have been named in the FIR. The
first informant is none other but an eye-witness to the incident.
He may be the son of the deceased but that by itself is not
sufficient to disbelieve what he has alleged in the FIR more
particularly when the investigation is going on. We also take into
consideration the fact that the deceased died of multiple head
injuries. Postmortem Report reveals there were multiple fractures.
Prima facie, the ocular version as narrated is in tune with the
5
medical evidence on record.
15. Just because a title suit is pending between the parties by
itself could not have been a ground to believe that the accused
persons have been falsely implicated.
16. It also appears from the submissions made by the Additional
Public Prosecutor before the High Court that the Respondent No.2
has five criminal antecedents and the Respondent No.3 has also few
criminal antecedents.
17. In the overall view of the matter, we are convinced that the
High Court committed an egregious error exercising its discretion
in favour of the accused persons by granting them anticipatory
bail.
18. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed.
19. The impugned Order passed by the High Court is set aside.
20. Both the accused persons i.e. Respondent Nos.2 and 3
respectively shall surrender before the Trial Court within a period
of one week from today.
21. Once they surrender before the Trial Court, they shall be
remanded to judicial custody. It will be open for both the accused
persons to thereafter pray for regular bail.
22. We are informed that the investigation is over and charge-
sheet has been filed.
23. The regular bail application that may be filed by the accused
persons shall be considered on its own merits in accordance with
law, having regard to the materials in the charge-sheet.
24. It is needless to clarify that the regular bail application
shall be decided without being influenced by any of the observation
6
made by us in the present order. We have said in so many words
that the principles governing grant of anticipatory bail differ to
a considerable extent from the principles governing grant of
regular bail. This shall be kept in mind by the concerned Court
while considering the regular bail application of the accused
persons.
25. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
…………………………………………J
(J.B. PARDIWALA)
…………………………………………J
(K.V. VISWANATHAN)
NEW DELHI
11TH FEBRUARY, 2026.
7
ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.7 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.837/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30-07-2025
in CRM No. 30622/2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Patna]
RAMA KANT SINGH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. Respondent(s)
Date : 11-02-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHANFor Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Devendra Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Karunakar Mahalik, AOR
For Respondent(s) :
Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR
Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Kumar Saurav, Adv.
Mr. Ashish Giri, Sr. Adv.
Ms. S. Lakshmi Iyer, AOR
Mr. Zafar Inayat, Adv.
Mr. Nikhil, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed, in terms of the
signed order.
3. The impugned Order passed by the High Court is set aside.
4. Both the accused persons i.e. Respondent Nos.2 and 3
respectively shall surrender before the Trial Court within a period
of one week from today.
(VISHAL ANAND) (POOJA SHARMA)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed Order is placed on the file)
