IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11086 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-264 Year-2025 Thana- RAMPUR District- Gaya ====================================================== 1. Bittu Dome @ Anuj Ram, S/O Munna Dome @ Munna Ram R/O Gewalbigha Domtoli, P.S.- Rampur, District- Gaya 2. Munna Dome @ Munna Ram, S/O Sumitri R/O Gewalbigha Domtoli, P.S.- Rampur, District- Gaya 3. Vishal Dome @ Vishal Kumar, S/O Munna Ram @ Munna Dome R/O Gewalbigha Domtoli, P.S.- Rampur, District- Gaya 4. Rahul Dome @ Rahul Kumar, S/O Bihari Dome @ Binod Dome R/O Gewalbigha Domtoli, P.S.- Rampur, District- Gaya 5. Mukhiya Dome @ Mukesh Dome, S/O Mohan Dome R/O Gewalbigha Domtoli, P.S.- Rampur, District- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vinod Kumar, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Mohammed Arif, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER 2 26-02-2026 1. Heard the parties. 2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Rampur P. S. Case No. 264 of 2025 registered for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 126(2), 115(2), 109(1) and 3(5) of the BNS. 3. The main submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners are that the FIR itself shows that the alleged occurrence was not pre-planned and the same is said to have taken place on account of a quarrel in between the children Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11086 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026 2/3 and further on the head of the informant only one injury was found while as per the FIR five accused who are here petitioners are alleged to have assaulted the informant by means of rod and danda. It is further submitted that among the petitioners, petitioner no. 1 has no criminal antecedent and against the petitioner nos. 2, and 3 there is a criminal antecedent of one case and against the petitioner nos. 4 and 5 there is also one criminal antecedent but they are on bail in those cases. 4. Learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the bail prayer of the petitioners. 5. In the facts and circumstances of this case and considering the aforesaid submissions, the pleas taken by the petitioners in their petition, mainly the young age of petitioner nos. 1, 3 and 4 coupled with this fact that against the petitioners there is no specific allegation in the FIR and the injury found on the person of the informant has been opined to be simple in nature and the alleged occurrence is not said to have taken place in a planned manner, in my opinion, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, let the petitioners named-above, in the event of their arrest/surrender before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail in connection with Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11086 of 2026(2) dt.26-02-2026 3/3 Rampur P. S. Case No. 264 of 2025 on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the Court concerned, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS. Rajiv/- (Shailendra Singh, J) U T