Hare Ram Kumar @ Hari Om v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13764 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-167 Year-2025 Thana- NAUBATPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Hare Ram Kumar @ Hari Om S/o Awadhesh Singh @ Awadhesh Sharma @ Bhutali Sharma Resident of Village- Choti Tangrela, P.S.- Naubatpur, DistrictPatna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Samrendra Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 13-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the Informant.

2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in connection with Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 167 of 2025 instituted for the offence under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 103(1), 352 and 3(5) of BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and one Chandan have fired at the uncle of the informant due to which he died.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and committed no offence. He has further submitted that there was dispute between Bittu and the deceased. Petitioner is only a co-villager and he has got no motive or enmity. It has further been submitted that for the same occurrence, two

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13764 of 2026(2) dt.13-03-2026 2/2 cases were filed by the police one is under Arms Act and second is this one. In the case of Arms Act, nothing has been recovered from his possession. He has further submitted that he has been remanded in this case from that case. He has also admitted that the death of deceased has caused due to firearm injuries and that the deceased has received three firearm injuries. Moreover, the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 26.04.2025.

5. Learned APP appearing for the State and learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer of regular bail and have submitted that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of firing at the deceased which is also corroborated by the postmortem report.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there is direct allegation against this petitioner, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage and, as such, his prayer for bail stands rejected.

7. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded. (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Shubham/- U T