D.K. Singh @ Dharmendra Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26360 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-49 Year-2025 Thana- LAHERIMUHALLA District- Nalanda ====================================================== D.K. Singh @ Dharmendra Kumar Singh S/o Late Nageshwar Singh R/o vill - Darogagarh, P.S.- Deep Nagar, Distt.- Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Shivendra Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-08-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 318(2), 319(2), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that during vehicle checking on 28.01.2025, a Scorpio was stopped, in the car, Prashant Kumar was sitting along with his two bodyguards namely Satyendra and Ramjee, who were carrying gun with cartridges. Further, the bodyguards showed their arm license and on license of Satyendra, there was no signature while license of Ramjee, bore signature of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26360 of 2025(4) dt.18-08-2025 2/3 authority, but spelling of Lucknow on the license was mis-spelt which created suspicion. Further, Prashant disclosed that he hired the bodyguard from M. Security Service owned by the petitioner. It is next alleged that the license were sent for verification and the Arms Magistrate informed that no license found for the UIN Number mentioned on the license, as such, the UIN Number was invalid.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant based on suspicion. It is next submitted that no doubt, Identity Card of the bodyguard was issued by the office of the petitioner, but then, neither the petitioner nor his office was instrumental in getting fake arm license issued in favour of the aforesaid bodyguard. It is submitted that bodyguard had approached the Security Company of the petitioner and after perusing their license, the Identity Card was made. It is submitted that had the petitioner been aware that the license is fake, then Identity Card of the company would not have been issued in their name as the name would have created evidence against the petitioner and his company of issuing I-Card based on fake license.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26360 of 2025(4) dt.18-08-2025 3/3 application.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, 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 anticipatory bail on his furnishing bail-bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned CJM, Nalanda, Biharsharif in connection with Laheri P. S. Case No.49 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T