IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4840 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-274 Year-2024 Thana- BHORE District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Bittu Prajapatti, Son of Sant Prajapati @ Ram Pravesh Prajapati, Resident of Village - Pakhopali, Police Station - Bhorey, District - Gopalganj. ... ... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Sirjawati Devi, Wife of Late Nawal Kishor Gond, Resident of Village - Pakhopali, Police Station - Bhorey, District - Gopalganj. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Raghav Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sadanand Paswan, Spl. P.P. For the respondent No.2 : Mr. Shekhar Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Avinash Kumar Singh, Advocate Ms. Shambhavi Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 3 17-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent and learned Spl. P.P. for the State. 2. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 13.11.2025 passed by learned District and Additional Sessions Judge-XI-cum- Exclusive Special Judge SC/ST Act, Gopalganj in Bhorey P.S. Case No. 274 of 2024 whereby the prayer for bail of the appellant registered under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109, 103 and 351 of B.N.S. and Sections 3(i)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act was rejected. 3. The case of the respondent, in short, is that the appellant along with others being armed with tangi, garasi, farsa, iron rod and lathi arrived due to land dispute, started abusing the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4840 of 2025(3) dt.17-03-2026 2/3 respondent with caste name and assaulting. It is further alleged that due to their assault Nawal Kishore Gond and Raju Gond succumbed to the injuries. Nakul Gond has also received injuries on his left hand. Other have also received injuries. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. From perusal of the F.I.R. it is clear that the cause of the occurrence is land dispute. It has further been submitted that there is also a counter version of this case and the appellant party has also received injuries in the occurrence. It has further been submitted that from perusal of the postmortem report it will transpire that in the postmortem report of both the deceased persons, the board conducting the autopsy has opined that cause of death is haemorrhage and shock due to above mentioned injury caused by impact of hard and blunt substance. It has also been submitted that nature of allegation is general and omnibus and the nature of injury does not correlate with the allegation. It has further been submitted that as per the F.I.R., the appellant was having Garasi which is a sharp cutting weapon whereas the opinion of the board is that the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. The appellant has got no criminal antecedent and languishing in judicial custody since 02.11.2024. 5. Countering this, the learned counsel for the respondent and learned Spl. P.P. have vehemently opposed the appeal for bail Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.4840 of 2025(3) dt.17-03-2026 3/3 and have submitted that from perusal of the postmortem report of Nawal Kishore Gond it will transpire that he has received five stitched antemortem wound and deceased Raj Kishsore Rai has also received three stitched wound, so it cannot be said that all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. The stitched would goes to show that the deceased have also received cut injuries. In this case, two persons have died and the postmortem report shows that they were brutally assaulted. Though, the accused persons are nine in number but the antemortem injuries are also various. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the appellant at this stage and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected. 7. However, the appellant may renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded. 8. Learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. lata/- (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) U T