Arun Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86183 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-251 Year-2019 Thana- MAGADH MEDICAL COLLEGE District- Gaya ====================================================== Arun Kumar S/o- Sikandar Ravidas Village - Rajendra Ashram P.S.- Civil lines District -Gaya ji ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Prithivi Raj Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 22-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-b)a/26 of the Arms Act as well as Section 30(a) of Bihar Prohibition and Excise (Amendment) Act, 2016.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of recovery of 22.337 litres of liquor along with a rifle and it is alleged that informant on information reached the place of occurrence where Raj Kumar informed that accused persons including the petitioner were firing during a dance programme and Ravi Kumar fired causing death of Prem Raj.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86183 of 2025(3) dt.22-01-2026 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that petitioner has been falsely implicated by the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the allegations, as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that specific allegation of firing is against Ravi Kumar leading to death of Prem Raj on which the learned APP submits that though petitions is not alleged to have fired but then he is alleged to have been firing in the dance programme and his presence emboldened Ravi Kumar to commit the occurrence leading to death of Prem Raj. It is also submitted that petitioner has antecedent of one case and, in the event, if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioner may abscond.

Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is hereby rejected in connection with Magadh Medical P.S. Case No.251 of 2019, pending in the court of learned Exclusive Special Judge, Excise4, Gaya. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Sanjay/- U T