Dimpu Sharma @ Vikash Ranjan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47664 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-167 Year-2025 Thana- NAUBATPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Dimpu Sharma @ Vikash Ranjan Son of Tejbali Singh @ Tejavali Sharma R/o village - Chhoti Tengraila, P.S.- Naubatpur, Dist.- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Davendra Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Arya, Advocate Mr. Ghanshyam Tiwary, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 31-07-2025 Heard Mr. Davendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Arya, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 167 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 14.03.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 126, 115(2), 118(1), 109, 103(1), 352, 3(5) of the BNS and 27 of the Arms Act.

3. According to prosecution case, petitioner along with other co-accused persons is said to have abused and assaulted the informant. It is further alleged that the accused persons started firing upon informant and his brother due to

2/4 which they got injured.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that although the petitioner is named in the FIR, but from a bare perusal of the FIR, it appears that specific allegation of firing has been attributed against the co-accused, namely, Chandan Kumar and Hareram Kumar @ Hariom. He fairly submits that as per FIR, the petitioner was present at the place of occurrence but there is no specific allegation of any assault or overt act or firing against this petitioner.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is named in the F.I.R, he has actively participated in the present crime in question and apart from that the petitioner carries two more cases other than the present one but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph 3 of the bail petition that the petitioner is on bail in the pending matter.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no specific allegation of any assault or overt act against the petitioner, the specific allegation of firing is

3/4 against the co-accused persons, let the petitioner, above named, in the event of his 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.-VI, Danapur, Patna in connection with Naubatpur P.S. Case No. 167 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure/ 482(2) of the BNSS, 2023 and with other 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. 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

4/4 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) priyanka/- U T