Vishwakarma Kumar @ Deepak Kumar @ Deepak @ Vish Karma Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7026 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-191 Year-2025 Thana- JURAWANPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Vishwakarma Kumar @ Deepak Kumar @ Deepak @ Vish Karma Kumar S/O Raj Kumar Ray R/O Vill.- Jurawanpur Barati, P.S.- Jurawanpur, DistrictVaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Ravish Mishra, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Yogendra Kumar, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Rajni Kant, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 19-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 324(4) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35 and 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per prosecution case, on 19.09.2025 at about 9:30 PM, this petitioner, along with another F.I.R. named and five unknown accused persons, came to the shop of informant and thereafter, this petitioner fired on the C.C.T.V. camera and destroyed the same and forcibly closed the shop and threatened

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7026 of 2026(2) dt.19-02-2026 2/2 the informant. It is further alleged that on 20.09.2025, the accused persons again came to the shop of informant, fired three bullets and again threatened the informant.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case with ulterior motive.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. with specific accusation that he, along with other accused persons, came to the shop of informant, fired and destroyed the C.C.T.V. camera and threatened the informant. Petitioner has got two criminal antecedents.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, specific and direct nature of accusation and criminal antecedents of the petitioner, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashank/- U T