Golu Pandey @ Vikesh Kumar Pandey @ Galu Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9788 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-278 Year-2025 Thana- JAGDISHPUR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Golu Pandey @ Vikesh Kumar Pandey @ Galu Pandey S/o Satendra Pandey Resident of Village - Diul, P.S.- Jagdishpur, District- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Akanksha Malviya, Adv.

Mr. Akash Keshav, Adv.

Ms. Naina Nancy, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP For the Informant : Mr. Abhishek, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-04-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 109(1), 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order dated 30.03.2026, a supplementary affidavit has been filed bringing on record the education certificates of the petitioner. It is next submitted that petitioner is a young boy, aged about 27 years and is a person with clean

2/5 antecedent and the informant alleges that on 23.07.2025 at 11 P.M. while he along with his father were irrigating their agricultural land, when the accused persons including the petitioner came variously armed and stopped the boring by which the land was being irrigated, on protest, accused Satyendra said that he would irrigate the land first, on account of which, an altercation took place and on order of Satyendra, petitioner fired from his pistol but the shot misfired, thereafter the petitioner assaulted the informant by butt of pistol causing injury on head, thereafter all the accused persons assaulted the informant with lathi, danda and rod with an intention to kill, on account of which, several injuries were caused and when informant's father came to his rescue, he was also assaulted by the accused persons by lathi and rod causing fracture of his left hand.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant alleges that all the accused persons assaulted him and his father brutally and thereafter threw them in Badhar (Bushes). It is next submitted that the injury suffered by the injured has

3/5 been opined to be simple in nature except one injury of the informant on head, alleged to have been caused on account of assault made by the petitioner by butt of pistol. Learned Counsel next submits that petitioner is a student and in support of the same, his Matriculation and Intermediate certificates have been brought on record along with the Diploma which he has done from ITI institute. It is next submitted that petitioner has recently passed his Craftsman Training Scheme in the year 2025. It is also submitted that though it is alleged that petitioner initially fired but then the shot misfired, thereafter petitioner assaulted by butt of pistol causing injury on head of the informant but then the FIR has not been instituted under the Arms Act. It is next submitted that from side of the petitioner, Jagdishpur P.S. Case No.

285/2025 has been instituted against the informant and his side. It is also submitted that on a trivial issue of irrigating the land, the occurrence is alleged to have taken place. It is next submitted that in Jagdishpur P.S. Case No.285 of 2025, the injury suffered by the informant has been explained that while fleeing he dashed against a pole, leading to the injury on his head.

4/5 to judicial custody, his entire career would get jeopardized and chances are bright that he may come in contact with hardened criminals.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that specific allegation of assaulting the informant on head by butt of pistol causing injury is alleged against the petitioner and the injury has been opined to be grievous in nature and the petitioner was treated at PMCH but then is not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that this is the first offence of the petitioner and petitioner is a student and the FIR has not been instituted under the Arms Act and if he is sent to judicial custody, chances are bright that he may come in contact with hardened criminals.

Learned counsel for the informant, at this stage, submits that if the privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond, on which, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation to prove his innocence.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned

5/5 counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Jagdishpur P.S. Case No.278/2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) B.N.S.S.

7. Further, one of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his cousin brother, namely, Chandan Kumar Pandey.

8. However, it is made clear that in the event if the Investigating Officer of the case files an application before the learned trial court bringing to its notice that the petitioner despite giving assurance to this court is not co-operating in the investigation in that event the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner. (Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T