Suman Singh @ Sumit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67744 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-384 Year-2025 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka ====================================================== Suman Singh @ Sumit Kumar Son of Late Bibhishan singh Resident Of Village -Bhadariya, Ps -Amarpur, Dist- Banka ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 24-09-2025

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

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(1) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges that while he along with his labourer were coming back from sand ghat when accused persons including the petitioner intercepted him and started abusing, on protest Suman (petitioner) and Amrit fired causing firearm injury over his chest and his labourer Puran also sustained gunshot injury.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67744 of 2025(2) dt.24-09-2025 2/2 petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant, it is next submitted that even presuming what has been alleged is true without admitting then the injury suffered by the injured has been opined to be simple in nature.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is specific allegation against Suman (petitioner) and Amrit of causing firearm injury to the informant and his labourer Puran and the investigation of the case is in its nascent stages and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T