Pappu Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27680 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2017 Thana- CHANDRADIP District- Jamui ====================================================== 1.
Pappu Singh S/o Late Sudama Singh R/o Village - Noni, P.S - Chandradeep, District - Jamui 2.
Laxman Pandey @ Amit Kumar S/o Rajendra Pandey R/o Village - Noni, P.S - Chandradeep, District - Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Arun Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Anish Chandra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 13-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Chandradeep P.S. Case No.06 of 2017, F.I.R dated 28.01.2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 504, 506, 448 and 34 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. According to prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant alleged that on the night of 26.01.2017, the accused persons came armed with pistols to the Dalan where his father, Brindawan Singh, was sleeping and, after threatening the informant, co-accused Pappu Singh and Laxman Pandey
2/4 allegedly fired at his father, causing his death on the spot. Thereafter, the accused persons fled away. The FIR was lodged on 28.01.2017 as the informant claimed he was in shock and unable to give his statement earlier. The alleged motive behind the occurrence is prior enmity relating to the PACCS election.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, upon investigation, final form was submitted in favour of petitioner no.1. However, differing from the police report, cognizance has been taken merely on the basis of the statement of the informant, despite the fact that during investigation no incriminating material was found against the petitioner and, accordingly, he was not sent up for trial. It has further been submitted that, so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, out of three criminal antecedents, final form has been submitted in Chandradeep P.S. Case No.122 of 2016 and Chandradeep P.S. Case No.43 of 2020, and in Mahuli P.S. Case No.43 of 2020 he is on bail. So far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, he has no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances there is no specific allegation against these petitioner rather the
3/4 allegations are general and omnibus and with respect to petitioner No.1, out of three criminal antecedent, final form has been submitted in Chandradeep P.S. Case No.122 of 2016 and in Chandradeep P.S. Case No.43 of 2020 and Mahuli P.S. Case No.43 of 2020, he is on bail and with respect to petitioner No.2, he has no criminal antecedent. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, 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 A.C.J.M. 1st, Jamui, in connection with Chandradeep P.S. Case No.06 of 2017 , subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- (i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document/personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide; (ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
4/4 date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds. (Ajit Kumar, J) sharun/- U T