Patna High Court
Dharmraj KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Dharmraj Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a FIR alleging that he was part of a group that intercepted and fired at an informant, resulting in a firearm injury and the alleged snatching of a locket. The petitioner contended that he did not fire any weapon and was falsely implicated, while the State argued that his presence at the scene encouraged the accused to fire and that granting bail could enable evidence tampering. The FIR listed offences under Sections 190, 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 109(2) and 303(3) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, with a process under Section 84 of the same Act already issued. The court examined the allegations, the petitioner’s prior criminal history, and the risk of interference with the investigation. Concluding that the petitioner’s presence could embolden the accused and that bail might jeopardize evidence, the court rejected the anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the FIR.
- Whether the petitioner’s mere presence at the scene constitutes participation sufficient to deny bail.
- Whether granting bail would pose a risk of tampering with evidence.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 109(2), 115(2), 126(2), 190, 191(3), 303(3), 84
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- firearm injury
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 27 Arms Act
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- evidence tampering
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13950 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-242 Year-2025 Thana- PARWALPUR District- Nalanda
======================================================
Dharmraj Kumar S/o Sadhusharan Prasad Resident of - Vijaypura, P.S -
Parwalpur, District - Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Alok, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Anita Kumari, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 31-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 190,
191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 109(2) and 303(3) of the BNS, 2023 as
well as Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of five cases and the informant alleges
that he was returning home on 01.12.2025, at 07:00 a.m., after
giving feed to the fish when seven named accused persons
including the petitioner intercepted him and started firing and on
orders of Ramraj Kumar, accused Dhananjay Kumar fired
causing firearm injury on his right hand and petitioner snatched
his locket.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13950 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant with ornamental allegation of snatching his locket. It
is further submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged
in the FIR, it would manifest that on orders of Ramraj Kumar,
Dhananjay Kumar fired causing firearm injury to the informant
on his hand. It is next submitted that petitioner is not alleged to
have fired.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. It is
further submitted that allegation is of firing causing firearm
injury to the informant. It is next submitted that petitioner may
not have committed the occurence of firing but then his
presence at the place of occurrence emboldened the accused to
commit the occurrence of firing. It is also submitted that process
under Section 84 of the BNSS has been issued. It is submitted
that if the privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the
petitioner, the petitioner may try to tamper with the evidence.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13950 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
3/3
anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Parwalpur
P.S. Case No. 242 of 2025 pending in the Court of learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hilsa (Nalanda)/Successor Court.
7. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…