Pravin Kumar @ Saurav Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77598 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-113 Year-2025 Thana- CHIKSAUR District- Nalanda ====================================================== Pravin Kumar @ Saurav Kumar S/O Manjeet Prasad @ Munna R/O Vill - Chakmahadipur, P.S - Chiksaura, Dist - Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 11-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in a case instituted under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 352 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per prosecution case, on the alleged date of occurrence, while the informant was standing near his gate, the named accused persons including petitioner came there and started abusing him and upon objection, they pulled down the informant and assaulted him. Petitioner is alleged to have fired from his pistol which hit the right side waist of the informant due to which he sustained injury.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77598 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026 2/2 case due to village politics. There is case and counter case. Petitioner and informant are agnates. Petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner by contending that there is direct allegation of firing from pistol against the petitioner which hit on the right side waist of the informant due to which he sustained injury. He further submits that the gunshot injury caused to the informant is also corroborated by the injury report, therefore, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of allegation made against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is rejected. (Sunil Dutta Mishra, J) Harish/- U T