Sudhakar Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28121 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-139 Year-2025 Thana- Mufassil District- Khagaria ====================================================== Sudhakar Kumar Son of Shankar Yadav Resident of Village -Morkahi, Ward 14, PS -Muffasil Distt- Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Chandan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Jitendra Kumar Singh, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 17-07-2026 Heard Mr.Chandan Kumar Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pranav Kumar, learned counsel for the informant as also Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 139 of 2025 instituted under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 351(3), 352, 118(2), 109(1), 3(5) of BNS and 27 of Arms Act lodged on 04.10.2025 by the informant, Neeraj Kumar.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that while his brother was returning home on motorcycle, Anuj Kumar and this petitioner intercepted and when his brother tried to move ahead, they assaulted causing head injury. Later, on the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28121 of 2026(3) dt.17-07-2026 2/2 order of this petitioner, Anuj Kumar opened fire causing injury on the leg. He was shifted to hospital which followed the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the main role has been alleged against Anuj Kumar, this petitioner is an order giver.

5. Mr. Pranav Kumar has taken this Court to the FIR to show that earlier both assaulted the informant's brother causing injury which followed the opening of fire. Further, the injury has been found to be grievous in nature.

6. Taking into account the submissions of the parties as also the role that the petitioner has played, no case of anticipatory bail is made out.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U T