Dharmraj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13950 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-242 Year-2025 Thana- PARWALPUR District- Nalanda ====================================================== Dharmraj Kumar S/o Sadhusharan Prasad Resident of - Vijaypura, P.S - Parwalpur, District - Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Ms. Anita Kumari, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 31-03-2026

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

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 190, 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 109(2) and 303(3) of the BNS, 2023 as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of five cases and the informant alleges that he was returning home on 01.12.2025, at 07:00 a.m., after giving feed to the fish when seven named accused persons including the petitioner intercepted him and started firing and on orders of Ramraj Kumar, accused Dhananjay Kumar fired causing firearm injury on his right hand and petitioner snatched his locket.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13950 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026 2/3

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant with ornamental allegation of snatching his locket. It is further submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that on orders of Ramraj Kumar, Dhananjay Kumar fired causing firearm injury to the informant on his hand. It is next submitted that petitioner is not alleged to have fired.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. It is further submitted that allegation is of firing causing firearm injury to the informant. It is next submitted that petitioner may not have committed the occurence of firing but then his presence at the place of occurrence emboldened the accused to commit the occurrence of firing. It is also submitted that process under Section 84 of the BNSS has been issued. It is submitted that if the privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may try to tamper with the evidence.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13950 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026 3/3 anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Parwalpur P.S. Case No. 242 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hilsa (Nalanda)/Successor Court.

7. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T