Rajeev Sharma @ Rajeev Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40732 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-750 Year-2025 Thana- AURANGABAD TOWN DistrictAurangabad ====================================================== Rajeev Sharma @ Rajeev Kumar S/o Kamlesh Sharma Resident of Village - Makhara, P.S.- Obra, District - Aurangabad, At Present Mohalla - Sri Krishna Nagar, Ahri, P.S.- Aurangabad Town, District- Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Amresh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Arun Kumar Singh For the Informant :
Mr. Prashant Kumar :
Mr. Shreyas Shridhar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 02.05.2026 in connection with Town P.S. Case No. 750 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(2), 3(5) of B.N.S. 2023 and Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959.
3. According to prosecution case one Rahul Sharma, made a fardbeyan before S.I. Sunil Kumar Yadav at Sadar Hospital Aurangabad on 01.12.2025 at about 19.32 PM alleging therein inter alia that I came to my camp from Shiv Ganj with a labour and then Chunnu Pandey @ Kunal Pandey and Ankit Pandey both of them called me from their respective came out at
2/4 the same time then I was outside my house and with the intention to kill me they fired at me with the pistol in their hand in which one bullet hit my right leg, one bullet in the blind in the left leg and one bullet in my thigh of the left leg. After which BrajeshSharma, Rajesh Sharma (Petitioner), Kunal Pandey, all of them together were incising there presser by saying kill me give me burden after firing the shot on seeing the crowed of people around, they went away from there and he some how save my life by running away and with the help of people, I came to sadar hospital where I am under going treatment, F.I.R.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is next submitted that from perusal of the FIR it appears that FIR is in two parts; in first part there is direct and specific allegation of firing attributed against Chunnu Pandey and Ankit Pandey and in second part the there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner and other co-accused persons. He further submits that similarly situated, co-accused, namely, Brajesh Sharma @ Brajesh Kumar, Kunal Pandey @ Kunal Kumar and Sarwesh Pandey @ Sarwesh Kumar have already been granted privilege
3/4 of anticipatory bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.02.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 12309 of 2026, order dated 15.05.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 34543 of 2026, order dated 15.05.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 34590 of 2026 respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that petitioner is in custody since 02.05.2026.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner has participated in the present crime in question.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that petitioner has clean antecedent, let the petitioner, above named, 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aurangabad in connection with Town P.S. Case No. 750 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
4/4 ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Gaurav Sinha/- U T