Lallan Kumar Gupta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17653 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-207 Year-2025 Thana- PANDARAK District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

Lallan Kumar Gupta S/O Late Tarani Prasad @ Tarani Sao R/O Village - Rasula, Post- Gosain Gaon, P.S- Pandarak (Barh) Dist- Patna 2.

Devendra Kumar @ Devendra Kumar Gupta S/O Late Tarani Prasad @ Tarani Sao R/O Village - Rasula, Post- Gosain Gaon, P.S- Pandarak (Barh) Dist- Patna 3.

Chandan Kumar S/O Late Tarani Prasad @ Tarani Sao R/O Village - Rasula, Post- Gosain Gaon, P.S- Pandarak (Barh) Dist- Patna 4.

Binod Sao Son of Late Kamal Sao. R/O Village - Rasula, Post- Gosain Gaon, P.S- Pandarak (Barh) Dist- Patna 5.

Pankaj Kumar Son of Binod Sao @ Binod Kumar Gupta. R/O Village - Rasula, Post- Gosain Gaon, P.S- Pandarak (Barh) Dist- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Satyendra Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 03-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The allegation in the First Information Report is that the petitioners are said to have assaulted and fired upon the informant.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17653 of 2026(2) dt.03-04-2026 2/3

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although there is allegation of resorting to firing, no one has suffered a firearm injury rather the allegation on petitioner no.1 is that he hit the informant on the head with pistol due to which he suffered head injury. Further, there is case and counter case and even during the course of investigation, as would be evident from the bail rejection order, it would appear that there was firing from both sides. There is land dispute between the parties and the injury suffered by the informant is also simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance.

5. Learned APP for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail on the basis of allegations made in the First Information Report.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also simple injury caused, let the above named petitioners, be released on bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is pending in connection with Pandarak P.S. Case No. 207 of 2025, subject to the condition as laid down under

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17653 of 2026(2) dt.03-04-2026 3/3 Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C/ Section 482 (2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

(Soni Shrivastava, J) anand/- U T