Vishal Kumar Pandey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31220 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-17 Year-2025 Thana- NAYAGAON District- Saran ====================================================== Vishal Kumar Pandey S/o Chandra Kumar Pandey R/o Village- Khanpur, P.S.- Manjhi, District- Saran (Chapra) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Brij Kishor Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. B.N. Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 20-05-2025 Heard Mr. Brij Kishor Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.N. Pandey, learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Nayagaon Station Case No. 17 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 111(2), 109(1), 61(2) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has fired at Vishnu Mahto and the gunshot hit near his nose.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. Counsel also submits that it is a case where scuffle took place between Vishal Kumar Pandey and Vishnu Matho in a truck. From perusal of the FIR, it is clear that the fire was not made by the petitioner rather the shot was fired accidentally. There is no injury report of the victim. From a perusal of the order of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31220 of 2025(2) dt.20-05-2025 2/2 trial court's also, it is clear that there is only description of petitioner's alleged complicity, and although another case exists, there is nothing regarding injury report. From a perusal of the case diary, it transpires that the firing occurred over a trivial issue and there was no repetition of the firing. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 01.02.2025.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State and submits that the petitioner is having criminal antecedent of one case.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Saran at Chapra in connection with Nayagaon P.S. Case No. 17 of 2025.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Sudhanshu/- U T