Sunil Kumar Mishra v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17213 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-566 Year-2025 Thana- BHORE District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Sunil Kumar Mishra, S/O Late Kanhaiya Mishra Village- Chhatiaon, P.S.- Bhorey, District- Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Patanjali Rishi For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey Mr. Adesh Raj ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-04-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of four cases and the informant alleges that on 19.11.2025 at 9.30 A.M., he had gone to the school for teaching and while returning home at 4.00 P.M., his car was overtaken by two unknown accused on a motorcycle who fired causing injury on his right hand and below his right
2/4 eye. The accused were in the age of 18-25 years, thus alleges that the occurrence was committed at the behest of Manish, Krishna and Malay. It is next alleged that about 7-8 days back, Manish Mishra had followed him but he did not give much attention as informant was objecting the misdeeds of the named accused persons.
4. The 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 allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the informant specifically alleges that two unknown accused in the age of 18-25 years fired at him causing injury, but then, petitioner based on suspicion came to be implicated that the occurrence was committed at his behest along with other named accused persons. It is also submitted that during the course of investigation also, no material transpired connecting the petitioner with the offence till now.
5. Learned A.P.P. as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the anticipatory bail application, but then, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that petitioner carries criminal antecedent and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted, the
3/4 petitioner may try to tamper with evidence, but then, fairly submits that during the course of investigation, no material was collected connecting the petitioner with the offence. It is also submitted that if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted, 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 and also submits that the case of the petitioner is not similar to the case of Manish Mishra as in the case of Manish Mishra, some material during the course of investigation was collected.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks, is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bailbonds in the sum 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 Bhore P. S. Case No.566 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., with a further condition that one of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his son namely, Sidhant Kumar Mishra.
4/4
7. The application stands allowed.
8. However, it is made clear that in the event, if any application is filed by the Investigating Officer before the learned trial Court bringing to its notice that petitioner, despite giving assurance to this Court, is not cooperating in the investigation or is not presenting himself as and when required, the learned trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner after recording reasons.
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Police Station through the learned trial Court. (Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T