Patna High CourtCR. MISC./5478/2026bail granted

Golu Kumar @ Sumit Kumar @ Sumit v. The State Of Bihar

2026-01-29Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5478 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2025 Thana- BEGUSARAI MUFFASIL DistrictBegusarai ====================================================== Golu Kumar @ Sumit Kumar @ Sumit S/o- Shakti Singh R/v- W.No-7, Ramdiri Nakti Naktitola Ramdiri Ps- Matihani Dist- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pritish Kumar Lal, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Sandip Kumar Gautam, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-01-2026 Heard Mr. Pritish Kumar Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sandip Kumar Gautam, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 03.09.2025 in connection with Begusarai Muffasil P.S. Case No. 12 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 12.01.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 351(2), 318(4), 308 (3), 308(5), 3(5) of the BNS and section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. According to prosecution case, the petitioner and accused persons are alleged to have fired a shot from a country made pistol on the informant's son with intention to kill and

2/4 further demanded Rs. 8,00,000/- as extortion.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that the allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. From a bare perusal of F.I.R., it appears that due to some previous dispute, the present occurrence has taken place and a Complaint Case No. 1145C of 2024 which was filed by the son of the informant against the brother of the petitioner. He further submits that for this reason, the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It appears from the FIR that the petitioner has fired upon the son of the informant but the Police has not mentioned the arms act in the FIR and the police after investigation, submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 03.09.2025.

5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner carries five more cases other than the present one but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph 3 of the bail petition that the petitioner is on bail in four cases and one case is pending for consideration before

3/4 competent court of law.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also the fact that there was some previous dispute (Complaint Case No. 1145c of 2024) between both parties, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Begusarai in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 12 of 2025, with the following conditions:

i. Petitioner 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 her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner 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 petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for

4/4 cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. 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.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Ranjeet/- U T