Sandeep Mandal @ Sandeep Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67522 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-26 Year-2025 Thana- NAYA RAM NAGAR District- Munger ====================================================== Sandeep Mandal @ Sandeep Kumar Son of Late Ashok Mandal Resident of Ram Nagar Morcha, P.S.- Naya Ram Nagar, District - Munger. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Deep Anshuman For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 25-09-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Naya Ram Nagar P.S. Case No.26/2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that petitioner along with Santosh were assaulting children, on which, his brother intervened, when petitioner gave pistol to Santosh, who shot his brother on his abdomen and doctor declared him dead.

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.67522 of 2025(2) dt.25-09-2025 2/2 informant. It is next submitted that even presuming what has been alleged is true without admitting then petitioner is not alleged to have fired causing death of the brother of the informant.

4. Learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant submits that though petitioner is not alleged to have fired causing death of the brother of the informant but then his presence at the place of occurrence emboldened Santosh to commit the occurrence. The learned APP at this stage submits that investigation in the case is continuing.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T