Pintu Singh @ Fauzi @ Sandeep Suman v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16080 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-329 Year-2024 Thana- Kharagpur District- Munger ====================================================== 1.
Pintu Singh @ Fauzi @ Sandeep Suman Son of Mahendra Singh @ Arbind Singh R/o Village-Bari Mudheri, P.S.-H. Kharagpur, District Munger 2.
Pappu Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh @ Rakesh Singh Son of Late Rajendra Singh R/o Village-Bari Mudheri, P.S.-H. Kharagpur, District Munger 3.
Nitish Kumar @ Pankaj Singh son of Late Rajendra Singh R/o Village-Bari Mudheri, P.S.-H. Kharagpur, District Munger ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ambrish Kumar Jha, Adv.
For the State :
Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, APP.
For the Informant :
Mr. Rabish Kumar, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 19-06-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 109, 352, 3(5), 61(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The allegation in the FIR is that while the informant and others were having some discussion with regard to PACS election, the FIR named accused persons including the present petitioners came to the house of the informant in an inebriated condition and started hurling abuses and also made 5-7 rounds
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16080 of 2025(4) dt.19-06-2025 2/3 of firing. It has further been alleged that the police came to the place of occurrence and during investigation, some empty cartridges were recovered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as a matter of fact, there are two factions in the village with regard to the PACS election and this is the reason why the petitioners have been implicated in the present case. So far as the recovery of empty cartridges is concerned, it is submitted that although the occurrence took place at 11:00 PM on 03.10.2024, the matter was reported to the police on 04.10.2024 at 3:00 PM i.e. after a delay of almost 16 hours. It is further submitted that no one has suffered any injury in the present case.
5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel appearing for the informant oppose the prayer for anticipatory bail and have specially invited the attention of the Court to the fact that the petitioners have a number of criminal antecedents. In response to the same, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that most of the cases arise out of political rivalry and the petitioners are also on bail in most of the cases.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16080 of 2025(4) dt.19-06-2025 3/3 of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within four weeks, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned lower Court where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with Kharagpur P.S. Case No. 329 of 2024, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C/ 482 (2) of the BNSS, 2023 and also to the further conditions that:
(1) One of the bailors would be a close relative or a family member of the petitioners, who would give an affidavit giving genealogy as to how he is related with the petitioners.
(2) The petitioners would make themselves available before the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station at an interval of every 15 days till charge sheet is submitted and would also thereafter cooperate in the trial. (Soni Shrivastava, J) divyanshi/- U T