Vishal Kumar @ Jigan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6350 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1416 Year-2023 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Vishal Kumar @ Jigan S/o Sanjeet Prasad @ Sanjit Ray R/o VillageJanakdhari Lal Road, P.S- Danapur, Dist- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dhananjay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Parmanand Kumar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 03-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in Danapur P.S. Case No. 1416 of 2023, registered under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that, the petitioner along with other co-accused persons fired on the door of the house of the informant due to which the empty cartridge fell inside the house of the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in the present case. No incriminating material have been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. It is further submitted

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6350 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026 2/2 that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner. During investigation the petitioner was not identified in the CCTV footage. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. He further submitted that accused persons including the petitioner made six round of firing at the door of the informant and two part of empty cartridges were recovered. Hence, considering the allegation, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the seriousness of allegation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer is rejected. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below within a period of four weeks and pray for regular bail. If such an application is filed, the same shall be disposed by the Court below without being prejudiced by this order.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) manish/- U T