Patna High Court
Hari Shankar Prasad @ KundanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court refused to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage of the proceedings.
Summary
Hari Shankar Prasad was arrested for allegedly firing at Surendra Singh, resulting in his death, and charged under Sections 61(2), 103(1) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner claimed innocence, asserting he was framed due to a land dispute and had no prior criminal record, while the State and informant presented a post‑mortem report indicating the petitioner as the main assailant. The petitioner sought bail, arguing false implication and prolonged pre‑trial custody since 27‑09‑2025. The court, after hearing both sides, declined to grant bail at this stage, noting the seriousness of the allegations and the need for trial completion. It directed the trial court to expedite proceedings and allowed the petitioner to renew the bail application after six months if the trial remained pending.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under the charges of firing causing death under the B.N.S., 2023 and the Arms Act
- Whether the evidence, including the post‑mortem report, justifies denial of bail
- Whether the petitioner poses a risk of fleeing, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 103(1), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Arms Act
- murder
- land dispute
- false implication
- post-mortem report
- trial expeditious
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10256 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-79 Year-2025 Thana- VIDYAPATINAGAR District- Samastipur
======================================================
Hari Shankar Prasad @ Kundan S/o Ram Madan Singh R/o Village - Kalyan
Ganj Bangraha, Ward No. 13, P.S - Vidyapatinagar, District - Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lakshmindra Kumar Yadav, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Abhinav, Advocate
Mr. Prabhu Narayan Prabhakar, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy, Advocate
Ms. Rekha Ranjan Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 11-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; learned
counsel for the informant and the learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with Vidyapati Nagar P.S. Case No. 79 of 2025 registered for
the offence punishable under Sections 61(2), 103(1) of the
B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the
petitioner has fired at Surendra Singh the brother of the
informant due to which he died on spot.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has
committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10256 of 2026(3) dt.11-03-2026
2/3
case. He also submits that from perusal of the FIR, it will
transpire that the informant has given a number of bikes on
which the petitioner and one other, namely Chandan, are alleged
to have come. He also submits that the said bike does not belong
to the petitioner or Chandan and the bike was recovered from
the possession of the co-accused. He also submits that from
perusal of the FIR, it is clear that there was a land dispute
between the parties and that the petitioner has been framed in
this case only due to the land dispute. Moreover, a statement has
been made in para 3 of the petition that petitioner has no
criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody
since 27.09.2025.
5. The application for bail is vehemently opposed by
the learned counsel for the informant and the learned APP for
the State. Learned counsel for the informant submits that there
is a direct allegation against the petitioner of firing, which is
supported by the post-mortem report. He also submits that the
petitioner is the main assailant.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage,
however the petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10256 of 2026(3) dt.11-03-2026
3/3
bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.
7. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U T
Checking your session…