← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./87503/2025bail granted

Chandan Kumar @ Titu Dhamaka v. The State Of Bihar

2026-03-19Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma8 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.68547 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2025 Thana- PIPRIYA District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Uma Shankar Sharma @ Mukesh Singh Son of Arjun Sharma Resident of Village - Walipur, P.S. - Pipariya, District - Lakhisarai. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 87503 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2025 Thana- PIPRIYA District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Chandan Kumar @ Titu Dhamaka S/o Babban Singh R/o vill - Jaitpur, P.S.- Barahiya, Distt. - Lakhisarai, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 68547 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Abhay Shanker Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Gauri Shankar Gupta, A.P.P.

(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 87503 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Devendra Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 19-03-2026 Cr. Misc. No. 68547 of 2025 Heard Mr. Abhay Shanker Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gauri Shankar Gupta, learned Additional Public Prosecutors for the State.

2/8

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 07.08.2025 in connection with Pipariya P.S. Case No. 60 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 19.06.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 103 (1), 61 (2)(a), 3 (5) of the B.N.S. 2023 and sections 27 of the Arms act.

3. According to prosecution case, informant alleged that, on 17.06.2025, when husband of the informant was returning, accused persons along with unknown came and killed him by bullet shot.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and the name of the petitioner has been transpired during investigation on the basis of confessional statement of the non-F.I.R named accused persons namely, Dhiraj Kumar @ Baba which was recorded by the prosecution on 20.06.2025 and the said accused Dhiraj Kumar @ Baba stated that the petitioner was involved in the present crime in question and the petitioner made arrangement for stay and food of the alleged shooters which was come for execution of the present crime in question and at the behest of Shivan Bhardwaj Golu Babu, with whom the deceased namely Mukhiya Chandan Kumar @ Domu, was having land dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner on instructions of the co-accused namely Golu babu arranged the accommodation of four persons and there is no allegation that the petitioner had participated in the present crime in question. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was not present at the

3/8 place of occurrence. He further submits that for the same occurrence, two information were given, in one informations which is the basis of Pipriya P.S. Case No. 60 of 2025 was lodged by wife of the deceased and six persons were named with the details address but there is no whisper about any complicity/role of the petitioner in the present occurrence. In the second information, given by the brother of the another deceased namely Chandan, informant has specifically and categorically alleged that 6-7 unknown persons have committed the murder of his brother and FIR has been lodged after a delay of one day.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the co-accused namely Shivam Bhardwaj @ Golu Babu at his behest the petitioner has arranged for stay and food of the alleged shooters has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 16.09.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 53025 of 2025 by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Another co-accused person namely Vikash Bharadwaj @ Vikas Bharadwaj has been granted privilege of anticipatory bail vide order dated 12.02.2026 in Cr. Misc. No. 69568 of 2025 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Another accused person namely Tuntun Yadav @ Saurabh Raj @ Pintu Kumar @ Santu Singh has been granted regular bail vide order dated 16.02.2026 in Cr. Misc. No. 7029 of 2026 and another co-accused person namely Rama kant Singh @ Ramakant Prasad Singh has been granted bail vide order dated 10.09.2025 in Cr. Misc. No.

4/8 sheet against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 07.08.2025.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the name of the petitioner has been transpired during investigation and apart from that, petitioner has carried four more cases other than the present one but fairly submits on the basis of para-3 of the bail petition that out of four cases, petitioner is on bail in three cases, one case is pending for consideration before the competent court of law.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R and the name of the petitioner has been transpired during investigation as well as similarly situated coaccused persons have been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of the court, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Lakhisarai/concerned J.M. 1st Class, Lakhisarai in connection with Pipariya P.S. Case No. 60 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

5/8 ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

Cr. Misc. No. 87503 of 2025 Heard Mr. Devendra Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutors for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 17.10.2025 in connection with Pipariya P.S. Case No. 60 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 19.06.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 103 (1), 61 (2)(a), 3 (5) of the B.N.S. 2023 and sections 27 of the Arms act.

3. According to prosecution case, informant alleged that, on 17.06.2025, when husband of the informant was returning, accused persons along with unknown came and killed him by bullet shot.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the F.I.R, the name of the petitioner transpired during

6/8 the investigation on the basis that the petitioner was supplier of the arms which was used in the present crime in question. It appears from the seizure list that nothing incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious possession or the house of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the coaccused namely Shivam Bhardwaj @ Golu Babu has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 16.09.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 53025 of 2025 by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Another co-accused person namely Vikash Bharadwaj @ Vikas Bharadwaj has been granted privilege of anticipatory bail vide order dated 12.02.2026 in Cr. Misc. No. 69568 of 2025 by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

Another accused person namely Tuntun Yadav @ Saurabh Raj @ Pintu Kumar @ Santu Singh has been granted regular bail vide order dated 16.02.2026 in Cr. Misc. No. 7029 of 2026 and another coaccused person namely Rama kant Singh @ Ramakant Prasad Singh has been granted bail vide order dated 10.09.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 59934 of 2025 and the case of the petitioner is on same footing. The police after investigation submitted a charge sheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 17.10.2025.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has carried 17 more cases other than the present one but fairly submits on the basis of para-3 of the bail petition that out of seventeen cases, petitioner has been acquitted by the learned trial

7/8 court in four cases and in twelve cases he is on bail, one case is pending for consideration before the competent court of law.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R and the name of the petitioner transpired during investigation and similarly accused persons have been granted bail by co-ordinate Bench of the court let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Lakhisarai/concerned J.M. 1st Class, Lakhisarai in connection with Pipariya P.S. Case No. 60 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the

8/8 above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) vashudha/- U T