Vineet Bhardwaj @ Vineet Kumar Ray v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80720 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-91 Year-2025 Thana- HASANPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== Vineet Bhardwaj @ Vineet Kumar Ray Son of Manibhushgan Ray @ Khakha Ray Village- Shasan PS -Hasanpur District- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Amarjeet Choudhary For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 01-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Hasanpur P.S. Case No. 91 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 109, 303(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Section 37 of the Arms Act.
3. As per prosecution case, when the informant was going to the tailor for taking his clothes, his motorcycle was punctured. He went to repair his motorcycle. In the meantime, it was informed by a boy of his village that the five accused persons, including the petitioner and 3-4 unknown persons armed with weapon are wandering with intention to kill him. It is alleged that the informant after repairing his motorcycle tried to flee away and when he was crossing the house of Keshav Jha,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80720 of 2025(2) dt.01-12-2025 2/3 all of a sudden, Arun Jha is said to have caught his collar and snatched his gold chain and Keshav Jha, who is son of Arun Jha, is said to have fired upon him, which is said to have missed. It is further alleged that Sonu Jha fired upon him from the back side which hit on his motorcycle. It is further alleged that Sonu Jha again fired upon the informant, which hit back of waist portion of the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged in the FIR. The petitioner is not assailant of firing rather his name has been stated by the villagers and the allegation of firing is not attributed to the petitioner and the informant has not seen the petitioner at the place of occurrence. The allegation of firing which hit at the waist portion of the informant is upon coaccused Sonu Jha and the allegation of firing by another coaccused Kesav Jha and the petitioner is not connected in any way. Apart from that, petitioner has one criminal antecedent, in which he has already acquitted by the learned A.D.J.-II, Rosera by virtue of order dated 03.12.2024 passed in Sessions Trial No. 62 of 2023.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80720 of 2025(2) dt.01-12-2025 3/3 name of the petitioner finds place in the FIR and he cannot escape from the allegation made in the FIR.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no allegation of firing against the petitioner, arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides and also taking into consideration the materials available on record, the petitioner above named, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial court within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M.,-II, Rosera in connection with Hasanpur P.S. Case No. 91 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S.
7. The application stands allowed.
(Alok Kumar Pandey, J) shailendra/- U T