Abhay Panjiyara v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63939 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-474 Year-2016 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka ====================================================== Abhay Panjiyara S/o Sudhir Panjiyara R/o Village- Nagardih, P.S.- Amarpur (Fullidumar), District- Banka ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravi Prakash Dwivedi, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Renu Kumari, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 25-02-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act as well as Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of two cases and is in custody since 07.06.2025. It is further submitted that the informant alleges that petitioner along with named accused persons surrounded his house and Jagdambi Panjiyar shot the cousin of the informant who died at the spot and Julmi Panjiyar shot the informant on hand who sustained two bullet injuries.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63939 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026 2/2 informant. It is further submitted that petitioner and the informant are agnates and they are having dispute relating to land. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that petitioner is not alleged to have fired rather was present at the place of occurrence.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submits that if privilege of regular bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond as he has antecedent of two cases under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail in connection with Amarpur (Fullidumar) P.S. Case No. 474 of 2016 pending in the Court of learned 1st Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Banka/Successor Court.

7. Hence, the prayer for bail is rejected.

8. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T