Patna High Court
Rahul KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted to the appellant.
Summary
The appellant, Rahul Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after being charged under several sections of the B.N.S., the Arms Act and the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for alleged involvement in a shooting incident. The FIR alleged that a person named Rahul shot the informant, while the appellant was present at the scene and allegedly emboldened the shooter. The Special Public Prosecutor argued that the appellant’s presence contributed to the offence and that the investigation was ongoing. The court examined whether the appellant could be granted bail despite the lack of a direct allegation of firing a weapon. Concluding that the appellant’s presence was material and the investigation was not complete, the court refused to extend anticipatory bail. The appellant’s prayer for bail was therefore rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail despite being present at the scene of the alleged offence.
- Whether the presence of the appellant can be construed as participation sufficient to deny bail.
- Whether the continuation of the investigation precludes the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- B.N.S. — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 189(2), 303(2), 351(2), 352
- Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v-a)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- SC/ST Act
- Arms Act
- presence at crime scene
- ongoing investigation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5055 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-115 Year-2025 Thana- SC/ST District- Samastipur
======================================================
Rahul Kumar Son of Ranjeet Sah R/o Village - Sardarganj , Police Station -
Dalsingsarai , District - Samastipur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Ajay Kumar Paswan Son of Nagina Paswan R/o Village - Sardarganj , Police
Station - Dalsingsarai , District - Samastipur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Mahendra Pratap
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Sadanand Paswan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 04-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The appellant has challenged the order dated
25.11.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (POA)
Act, Samastipur in connection with Samastipur SC/ST P. S.
Case No.115 of 2025, instituted for the offences under Sections
189(2), 126(2), 115(2), 109, 303(2), 352, 351(2) of the B.N.S.,
Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(r)(s),3(2)(v-a) of
the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, whereby his prayer for grant of anticipatory bail
has been rejected.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5055 of 2025(2) dt.04-02-2026
2/3
appellant submits that appellant is a person with clean
antecedent and the informant alleges that Rahul Kumar son of
Hargauri Singh shot the informant in both his knees while
Guddu and Abhijit snatched his mobile and chain while he was
resting in an orchard.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submits that from perusal of the allegation as alleged
in the FIR, it would manifest that there are two accused by the
name Rahul and the instant appellant is not alleged to have shot
the informant rather the other Rahul is alleged to have fired at
the informant. It is further submitted that as such, no specific
allegation of firing is against the appellant.
5. The learned Special P. P. opposes the bail
application and submits that there is a specific allegation of
causing two firearm injuries on knees of the informant by Rahul
son of Hargauri Singh, but then, the instant appellant who is son
of Ranjeet Sah was also present at the place of occurrence along
with other accused persons and it was the presence of the
appellant along with other accused persons which emboldened
Rahul son of Hargauri Singh to commit the occurrence of firing
leading to injury. It is also submitted that investigation in the
case is still continuing.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5055 of 2025(2) dt.04-02-2026
3/3
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
Special P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the appellant.
7. The prayer of the appellant for anticipatory bail
stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.