Saurav Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54245 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-266 Year-2025 Thana- GHOSI District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Saurav Kumar S/o Uday Sharma R/o Village- Tarma, P.S- Okari, DistrictJehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Sarita Kumari, Advocate Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 18-08-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Ghosi P.S. Case no.266 of 2025 registered under sections 109, 126(2), 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and sections 27 and 25(9) of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, over a dispute between the parties who are agnates/uncle and nephew, it is stated that on a shot fired from the firearm by this petitioner, the same hit the informant in his right palm.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case because of land dispute between the parties. The petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54245 of 2025(2) dt.18-08-2025 2/2 happens to be the nephew of the informant. The manner of occurrence and the informant having sustained injury is other than what has been narrated in the F.I.R. The petitioner, who is a 24 year old, has no criminal antecedent and undertakes to cooperate in the investigation/trial.

5. The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegation of firing against the petitioner and the shot having hit the informant in his right palm, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail and the application is rejected.

7. The petitioner is directed to surrender in the learned Court below within a period of four weeks.

8. In case the petitioner surrenders within a period of four weeks and prays for regular bail, the same shall be considered without being prejudiced by this order of rejection. (Partha Sarthy, J) avinash/- U T