Gulshan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16220 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-350 Year-2024 Thana- HULASGANJ District- Jehanabad ====================================================== 1.

Manjit Sharma @ Ranju @ Manjit Kumar S/o Late Shiv Bachan Singh Resident of Village - Mokimpur, P.S. - Hulasganj, District - Jehanabad 2.

Anil Sharma S/o Late Shiv Bachan Singh Resident of Village - Mokimpur, P.S. - Hulasganj, District - Jehanabad 3.

Chandan Kumar @ Anshuman Kumar S/o Anil Sharma Resident of Village - Mokimpur, P.S. - Hulasganj, District - Jehanabad 4.

Kundan Kumar S/o Anil sharma Resident of Village - Mokimpur, P.S. - Hulasganj, District - Jehanabad 5.

Dablu Sharma S/o Brijdev Sharma Resident of Village - Mokimpur, P.S. - Hulasganj, District - Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 16974 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-350 Year-2024 Thana- HULASGANJ District- Jehanabad ====================================================== 1.

Gulshan Kumar Son of Late Mani Singh Resident of Village - Mokimpur, P.S. - Hulasganj, District - Jehanabad 2.

Raushan Kumar Son of Late Mani Singh Resident of Village - Mokimpur, P.S. - Hulasganj, District - Jehanabad 3.

Mohan Krishana @ Mohan Kumar Son of Manjit Sharma Resident of Village - Mokimpur, P.S. - Hulasganj, District - Jehanabad 4.

Shuli Kumari @ Suli Devi Wife of Late Dablu Sharma Resident of Village - Mokimpur, P.S. - Hulasganj, District - Jehanabad 5.

Siyamani Devi Wife of Late Shiv Bachan Sharma @ Late Shiv Bachan Singh Resident of Village - Mokimpur, P.S. - Hulasganj, District - Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 16220 of 2025) For the Petitioners :

Mr. Bijay Prakash Singh, Advocate For the State :

Dr. Mrityunjaya Kr. Gautam, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 16974 of 2025)

2/4 For the Petitioners :

Mr. Bijay Prakash Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Ahmad Ali, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 03-07-2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

2. Since both these petitions arise of the same P.S. Case, they are being taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

3. The prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to Petitioner No. 3 in Cr. Misc. No. 16220 of 2025 has already been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 07.04.2025.

4. Petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 351(3), 109(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S..

5. As per prosecution case, on 14.12.2024 at about 4 PM, while nephews of informant, namely Binod Sharma and Pramod Sharma, were coming from the fields, in the meantime, all these accused petitioners, equipped with deadly weapons, were sitting on the bridge. It is alleged that co-accused Chandan Kumar, armed with pistol, threatened to kill them, in the meantime, petitioner Manjit Sharma assaulted Pramod Sharma by means of iron rod causing head injury. It is further alleged that petitioner Mohan Kumar gave Lathi blow to Binod Sharma

3/4 causing fracture injury in his hand. It is also alleged that petitioners Dablu Kumar, Gulshan Kumar and Raushan Kumar were armed with Gadasa whereas petitioners Shuli Kumari @ Suli Devi and Siyamani Devi were throwing stones. Accordingly, the present F.I.R. has been registered.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence. Petitioner have falsely been implicated in this case due to old rivalry. As a matter of fact, due to petty dispute, a free fight took place between the parties in which both sides sustained injuries. There is case and counter-case between the parties.

7. On the other hand, learned A.P.Ps. for the State have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and submitted that petitioners are named in the F.I.R. with specific accusation that they actively participated in the alleged occurrence and assaulted nephews of informant. Allegation of assault is corroborated by the injury report as mentioned in Paragraph No. 43 of the case diary.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, materials available on record and specific and direct nature of accusation, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the

4/4 petitioners is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashank/- U T