Patna High Court
Tiger Patel @ Kundan Patel @ Kundan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted as the allegations were serious, the petitioner’s involvement was established through investigation, and there was a real risk of absconding or evidence tampering.
Summary
Tiger Patel applied for anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged in 2017 alleging that he and his brother fired at a person, causing firearm injury, under Sections 307 and 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner argued that the FIR was initially against unknown persons and that his name was later derived from a confessional statement of another accused, which he claimed lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed bail, highlighting the seriousness of the offences, the existence of a Section 82 CrPC process, and the risk that the petitioner might abscond or tamper with evidence if released. The court examined the nature of the allegations, the evidentiary basis, and the potential for misuse of liberty. Concluding that the allegations were grave and the risk of tampering existed, the court refused to grant anticipatory bail. The petition for anticipatory bail was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC in view of the seriousness of the offences alleged.
- Whether a confessional statement of a co-accused can constitute sufficient basis to implicate the petitioner for the offences.
- Whether the risk of absconding or tampering with evidence justifies denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438, 82
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 34
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- IPC 307
- IPC 34
- Arms Act 27
- Section 82 CrPC
- Section 438 CrPC
- confessional statement
- evidence tampering
- absconding risk
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15492 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-158 Year-2017 Thana- UCHKAGAON District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Tiger Patel @ Kundan Patel @ Kundan Kumar Son of Ashok Prasad @
Ashok Patel Resident of Village- Rampur Kharea, P.S.- Kuchaikote, District-
Gopalganj, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Indrajeet Bhushan
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Pushpa Sinha.1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 24-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in Uchkagaon P. S. Case No.158 of 2017 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 307/ 34 of the I.P.C. and
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has antecedent of four cases, but then, was
acquitted in two cases and the informant alleges that he along
with his brother Amit were returning from Suman Hospital on
13.08.2017 at 10.15 P.M., when they were asked to stop by two
unknown criminals and when they stopped, one of the criminals
wearing blue T-shirt fired causing firearm injury over his right-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15492 of 2026(3) dt.24-03-2026
2/3
arm.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
FIR was against unknown and the name of the petitioner
transpired during the course of investigation in the confessional
statement of Anurag in police custody, which does not have any
evidentiary value.
5. Learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the anticipatory
bail application and submits that the case is of the Year 2017,
allegation is of firing causing firearm injury to the injured and
the name of the petitioner transpired during the course of
investigation and even process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has
been issued. It is also submitted that if privilege of anticipatory
bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond or
try to tamper with the evidence.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail
stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15492 of 2026(3) dt.24-03-2026
3/3
Checking your session…