Sumit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86869 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-187 Year-2025 Thana- PATNA CITY CHOWK District- Patna ====================================================== Sumit Kumar S/O Suresh Sah @ Suresh Sha R/O Mohalla- Kaimashikoh, Kaua Kho Renter in the house of Bhagat Ji, P.S- Chowk, Distt.- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Nityanand Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER 20-02-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Patna City Chowk P.S. Case no. 187 of 2025 registered under sections 126(2), 352, 109 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and sections 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35 and 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, as a result of firing by the accused persons, it is stated that the son of the informant sustained firearm injury in his stomach.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case because of prior enmity between the parties. The allegations are general and omnibus in nature. The petitioner is in custody since 20.5.2025 and charge sheet has been submitted in the case.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86869 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026 2/2
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned learned APP for the State who submits that it transpired in course of investigation that it was as a result of firing by the petitioner that the son of the informant sustained firearm injury.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner in the F.I.R., the material that has transpired in course of investigation, the son of the informant having sustained firearm injury as a result of firing by this petitioner, the Court is not inclined to regard the petitioner on bail and the application is rejected.
7. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his prayer for bail after 6 months or after framing of charge, whichever is later.
(Partha Sarthy, J) Bibhash U T