Rampyare Chauhan @ Rampyare Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2755 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-104 Year-2025 Thana- NARDIGANJ District- Nawada ====================================================== Rampyare Chauhan @ Rampyare Kumar Son of Lal Keshar Chauhan R/o Village - Charna Chatar, P.S.- Nardiganj, Distt. - Nawada. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Shivendra Kumar Sinha Mr.Ranjeet Patel For the State :
Mr.Md. Mushtaque Alam For the informant :
Mr. Arjun Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 13-05-2026
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Nardiganj Police Station Case No. 104 of 2025, dated 15.03.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2)/127(2)/352/351(2)/109/3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that the co-villager of the informant, namely, Rampyare Chauhan (petitioner) took a loan of Rs. 14,000/- from the brother of the informant, out of which he had refunded a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2755 of 2026(4) dt.13-05-2026 2/3 sum of Rs. 10,000/- and for rest Rs. 4,000/-, he had assured to refund the same at the time of Holi. On 14.03.2025, at about 8 PM, the brother of the informant told the petitioner to refund the due amount, upon which hot exchange of words took place between them, upon which the father of the petitioner came and told to come with him and he will refund the money. The brother of the informant accompanied him and when they reached near Pahari Chapakal, the petitioner, along with others, started abusing the brother of the informant and the petitioner shot him by country-made pistol, due to which he sustained bullet injury in his left temporal region.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that both the parties are covillagers and agnates. He further submits that during investigation, neither the injured nor his father have been examined by the police. He further submits that all the witnesses are not the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 07.11.2025 and charge sheet has already been submitted against him and as such there is no likelihood that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2755 of 2026(4) dt.13-05-2026 3/3 petitioner will abscond and/or tamper with the evidence.
5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the informant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the injured has sustained lacerated wound on the left side of face with charring/burning around the wound, which is grievous in nature and the same corroborates the allegation made in the First Information Report. He next submits that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of causing bullet injury to the injured.
6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that the injured has received gun shot injury, attributable to the petitioner and the same is grievous in nature, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.
7. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.
8. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer after completing nine months in custody, if the trial does not show any progress.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T √