Lav Kush Sharma @ Lav Kush Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24162 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1441 Year-2025 Thana- PHULWARISHARIF District- Patna ====================================================== Lav Kush Sharma @ Lav Kush Singh Son of Gopal Sharma Resident of Village Simra, Post - Kurji Mahmadpur, Simra, P.S.- Janipur, District - Patna, Presently residing at Mohalla Maurya Bihar Colony, Ward No. 14, Road No. 3, Khagaul, Police Station - Phulwarisharif, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Shashank Chandra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, APP For the Informant :
Mr. Satyam Anand, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 17-06-2026 Heard Mr. Shashank Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Satyam Anand, learned counsel for the informant appeared through virtual mode and Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 24.12.2025 in connection with Phulwarisharif P.S. Case No. 1441 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 31.08.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 49, 109, 352, 351(2) and 351(3) of the BNS, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, due to some business enmity, this petitioner along with other accused persons
2/4 assaulted the informant and fired upon him.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. Although it appears from the FIR itself that due to business dispute the present occurrence has taken place. There is specific allegation against the petitioner that he has fired upon the informant/victim due to which he has recieved injury but from perusal of the injury report of the injured person it appears that the doctor has opined that he has recieved gun shot injury but the doctor has not mentioned whether the entry wound and exit wound are available on the persons of the injured. Apart from that it appears from the injury report of the injured person/informant that he has been discharged from the hospital within a period of one week only. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 24.12.2025.
5. The learned counsel for the informant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner carries seven criminal antecedents other than the present one but fairly submits that out of seven cases, he is on bail in two cases, in another two cases compromise has been done between the
3/4 parties and in rest three cases the police have submitted disclosure report in favour of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned ACJM-IV, Patna in connection with Phulwarisharif P.S. Case No. 1441 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
4/4 shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T