Naman Kumar @ Neynan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9231 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-280 Year-2024 Thana- KASIMBAZAR District- Munger ====================================================== Naman Kumar @ Neynan Kumar S/O Naresh Yadav R/O Nabtolia Bindwara, P.S.- Kaashim Bazar, Dist.- Munger.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar BIHAR ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Nawal Kishore Singh, Adv.
For the informant : Mr. Vijaya Laxmi Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Prem Ranjan Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Braj Bhushan Mishra, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Md. Shakir Ahmad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 26-06-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Sessions Trial No. 15/2025 arising out of Kashim Bazar P.S. Case No. 280 of 2024 dated 03.10.2024 registered for the offences punishable u/ss 109 read with Section 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant alleged that when he was walking near the airport, the petitioner and the co-accused, Mithu Yadav came and after altercation, the coaccused, Mithu Yadav opened fire causing injury on his chest. Further allegation is that another round was fired which hit the cloth of the informant. This led to the F.I.R.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9231 of 2025(3) dt.26-06-2025 2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner rather the specific allegation is against the co-accused, Mithu Yadav who fired on the informant and hence, no case is made out u/s 109 of the B.N.S. against the petitioner. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged offence. The co-accused person has already been granted regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 08.01.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 88482 of 2024. It is further submitted that the case of the peitioner is better footing than that of the co-accused who has already been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 08.01.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 88482/2024. The petitioner has no criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is in custody since 25.10.2024.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the bail petition of the petitioner and submitted that the specific allegation against the petitioner and the co-accused person is that they came on a motorcycle and fired on the informant causing injury on his chest which is evident from para 47 of the case diary in which the re-statement of Pankaj Kumar has also stated that when the informant tried to escape after sustaining bullet injury, in the meantime, the petitioner caught hold
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9231 of 2025(3) dt.26-06-2025 3/3 of him. Learned counsel has further submitted that from para 89 of the case diary, the petitioner has confessed his guilt in the alleged offence.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the heinous nature of allegation against the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner above-named on bail.
7. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within a period of six months.
8. The application stands rejected.
(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) shivam/- U T