Pappu Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87785 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-182 Year-2025 Thana- BHARGAMA District- Araria ====================================================== Pappu Singh S/o Late Rajendra Singh Resident of Village- Paikpar, Ward No. 12, P.S.- Bhargama, District- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Vijay Kishore Bharti, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 22-01-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Bhargama P.S. Case No. 182 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 352 and 3(5) of the BNS read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that accused persons came to her house and started demolishing the fence, on protest petitioner assaulted her son Raja by slap and thereafter fired causing injury on her left hand.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87785 of 2025(2) dt.22-01-2026 2/2 allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that on account of dispute relating to land, the occurrence is alleged to have taken place. It is next submitted that no doubt it is alleged that petitioner fired causing firearm injury on hand of the son of the informant, but then injury has been opined to be simple.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that allegation is of firing causing injury and the investigation of the case is in its nascent stages.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T