Patna High CourtCR. MISC./38287/2025bail granted

Dharmendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2025-08-19Mr. Justice Chandra Prakash Singh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.38287 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-895 Year-2024 Thana- ALAMGANJ District- Patna ====================================================== Dharmendra Kumar Son of Virendra Paswan R/O - Naya Gaon, Laddu Akhada, P.S.- Alamganj, Distt.- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Binod Kumar, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Santosh Kumar, Sr. Advocate Mr. Pawan Kumar, Adv Mr. Utsav, Advocate Mr. Raghav Vats, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 19-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.P.P for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Alamganj P.S. Case No. 895 of 2024 dated 08.10.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2) of B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Later on Section 25(1-B)(a) and 26 of the Arms Act was added.

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant alleged that the co-accused, Sanjeet Yadav and others have murdered the husband of the informant due to land dispute, the informant also stated that her husband had said that Sanjeet Kumar was making pressure on him for registering the new constructed

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38287 of 2025(3) dt.19-08-2025 2/3 house at Bajrang puri. She also stated that Sanjeet Kumar along with others have threatened her husband by firing. She further stated that her husband went for morning walk and during that time Sanjeet Kumar killed her husband. She also claimed that Sanjeet Yadav killed her husband by firing on him due to land dispute.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is not named in the FIR. The name of the petitioner has sprung up in the confessional statement of the co-accused person, Sunny Kumar. Learned counsel has submitted that the specific allegation of firing is against the co-accused, Sunny Kumar. It is further submitted that the petitioner is only involved in the conspiracy. The petitioner has two antecedents as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is in custody since 17.10.2024

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State as well as the learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the bail petition of the petitioner. In Para-25 of the case diary, the confessional statement of the petitioner is mentioned in which he disclosed that the co-accused, Sunny Kumar fired upon the victim, the arms was supplied to him by the co-accused Shiv Kumar and Rohit Pandey. Further the co-accused, Sanjeet

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.38287 of 2025(3) dt.19-08-2025 3/3 Kumar @ Sanjeet Yadav gave Rs. 5000/- to the co-accused, Sunny Kumar as an advance to kill Rajeev Ratan Gupta. Earlier the regular bail application of the other co-accused persons were rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 10643 of 2025.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the period of custody, the petitioner abovenamed, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court concerned, Patna City, Patna in connection with Alamganj P.S. Case No. 895 of 2024, with the condition ;- (i). The petitioner is directed to remain physically present before the learned Court below on each and every date, failing which on two consecutive dates without reasonable cause, the bail bond of the petitioner is liable to be cancelled.

7. The application stands allowed.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J) atul/- U T