Munna Kumar @ Chhotaku v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70054 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-103 Year-2025 Thana- PIPRA District- Supaul ====================================================== 1.
Munna Kumar @ Chhotaku, Male, aged about 22 Years, Son of Ram Babu Sah 2.
Ram Babu Sah, Male, aged about 53 years, son of Late Sitaram Sah, Both R/O Village- Pipraun, P.S - Laukahi, District - Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 24-02-2026 Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 103 of 2025, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 118(2), 3(5) of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, On 04.04.2025 at about 07:00 p.m., while the informant was returning back to his home from the house of his sister on his motorcycle, near Dinapatti Railway Crossing of NH-3227, four persons on two motorcycles opened fire upon him, due to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70054 of 2025(6) dt.24-02-2026 2/3 which, he had sustained injuries in his abdomen and on his chest. It is further alleged that the informant has identified two persons, namely, Munna Kumar (petitioner no. 1) and Ram Babu Sah (petitioner no. 2), who are brother-in-law and fatherin-law of the informant respectively.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. There is no question of taking life of informant, who is brother-in-law of the petitioner no. 1 and son-in-law of the petitioner no. 2. Learned counsel further submitted that it is admitted between the parties that due to alleged non fulfillment of demand of dowry, the petitioners have been roped in a false criminal case. There is no eye witness to the alleged shooting. Even considering that the informant has sustained injury and he has identified the petitioners, the same is as a result of ongoing divorce case between the informant and daughter of petitioner no. 2. Petitioners have clean antecedent. On these grounds, petitioners seek to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70054 of 2025(6) dt.24-02-2026 3/3 behalf of the parties, as well as, opinion of the doctor in which, the injuries sustained by the informant have been found in the abdomen and on the chest, which are vital part of the body and the same are grievous in nature, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on pre-arrest bail.
7. Accordingly, the present application stands rejected.
(Purnendu Singh, J) Niraj/- U T