Patna High Court
Pukari Yadav @ Pukari KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR SINHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners, Pukari Yadav and Bibhishan Kumar, were implicated in a shooting incident where the informant's son was injured, alleged under Sections 109 and 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act and Section 27 of the Arms Act. They applied for anticipatory bail, claiming innocence and asserting that the allegations were false. The State opposed the bail, highlighting the petitioners' prior criminal records—four and three antecedents respectively—and labeling them habitual offenders. The court examined the FIR, injury report, and the petitioners' criminal histories, concluding that the seriousness of the offences and their past conduct warranted denial of bail. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Sections 109, 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act given the facts and their criminal antecedents.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 109, 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- habitual offender
- criminal antecedents
- Arms Act
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- FIR
- injury report
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14654 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-200 Year-2025 Thana- CHANDRADIP District- Jamui
======================================================
1. Pukari Yadav @ Pukari Kumar S/O Late Naresh Yadav R/O Vill.-
Bhaaluaana, P.S.- Chandradeep, Dist.- Jamui.
2. Bibhishan Kumar @ Bibhishan Yadav S/O Mahadeo Yadav R/O Vill.-
Bhaaluaana, P.S.- Chandradeep, Dist.- Jamui.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brajesh Sahay, Adv
Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Adv
Ms. Harshita, Adv
Ms. Amrita Kumari, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Matloob Rab, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Pramod Kumar, Adv
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
3 29-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection
with Chandradeep P.S. Case No. 200 of 2025, registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 109, 3(5) of B.N.S. and
Section 27 of Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on
18.11.2025 at about 04:00 P.M, the informant's son Randhir
Kumar Yadav had gone to Gautam Mistry in Aliganj bazar for
some private work regarding tractor repair. While he was
standing there getting his work done by the mechanic suddenly
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14654 of 2026(3) dt.29-04-2026
2/3
09 individuals arrived and fired on the informant’s son due to
which informant's son was severely injured. Based on the
information provided by informant's son that the attacker
include 1. Pukari Yadav, 2. Bibhishan Yadav, 3. Bhushan Yadav,
4. Rambilas Yadav, 5. Pankaj Yadav, one bullet struck the
informant son's right hand while another bullet struck in his leg
after that all the accused has fled away from the place of
occurrence on a Apache Motorcycle and on other vehicles.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the
present case. They have nothing to do with the alleged
occurrence. There is general and omnibus allegation against the
petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners have two
criminal antecedents.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer of
anticipatory bail.
6. In the FIR, there is allegation against the petitioners
that they along with other co-accused fired bullet gun shot on
Randhir Kumar Yadav. In the impugned order, the learned Court
below has also noticed that the injury report of Randhir Kumar
Yadav shows that he has sustained fire arm injury. The petitioner
no. 1 has four criminal antecedents and the petitioner no. 2 has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14654 of 2026(3) dt.29-04-2026
3/3
three criminal antecedents, the details of which have been
brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit.
Considering these aspects of the matter and particularly the fact
that the petitioners appear to be habitual offenders, this Court is
not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the
petitioners.
7. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail
application stands rejected.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
kiran/-
U T
Checking your session…