Vikash Singhania @ Vikash Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49601 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-752 Year-2024 Thana- GAURICHAK District- Patna ====================================================== Vikash Singhania @ Vikash Kumar S/O Late Umesh Rai R/O Vill. and P.S.- Gaurichak, Dist.- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Jay Ram Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sharda Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 31-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Gaurichak P.S. Case No. 752 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections-109, 238(b) and 351(3) of B.N.S. 2023 as also Section-27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per prosecution case, some money of the informant, Praduman Kumar was due with Nitish and Sudhir. The petitioner is said to have threatened him and asked not to demand the money from Nitish and Sudhir. Thereafter, he fired with pistol, which hit the abdomen of the informant. The second shot fired by the petitioner hit the wrist of left hand whereas third and fourth shot hit the thigh of the informant. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49601 of 2025(4) dt.31-01-2026 2/2 petitioner opened fifth fire also but the same was missed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. Except the informant, none has supported the prosecution case. The petitioner is the co-villager and due to dirty village politics, he has been implicated in the present case.

5. Learned APP has opposed the prayer for bail.

6. Perusal of the injury report shows six fire-arm injuries on the person of the informant. The petitioner has got criminal antecedent of four cases.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail and accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) A.K.V.//- U T