Lavkush Kumar @ Ravish KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16364 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-510 Year-2025 Thana- HARNAUT District- Nalanda
                 ======================================================
                 Lavkush Kumar @ Ravish Kumar S/O Bhuneshwar Prasad R/O Vill.-
                 Phalahawan, P.S.- Harnaut, Dist.- Nalanda.

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Sudish Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Kanhiya Kishor, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   02-06-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection

                   with Harnaut P.S. Case No. 510 of 2025, dated 10.11.2025,

                   lodged under Sections 103(1) & 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya

                   Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “BNS, 2023”) and

                   under Section 27 of the Arms Act, pending before the Court of

                   Learned Addl. Sessions Judge-IVth, Bihar Sharif-cum-Exclusive

                   Special Judge [POCSO].

                                3. As per the prosecution, an FIR has been lodged

                   against six named accused persons, including the present

                   petitioners. It is alleged that all six persons arrived on the land

                   and instructed the informant to store grain there. The husband of

                   the informant told the accused persons that they had already
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16364 of 2026(4) dt.02-06-2026
                                            2/4




          taken three bighas of land earlier, and requested them to at least

          leave the agricultural land he was currently using for farming. It

          has been alleged that a heated discussion ensued, during which

          the petitioner and his father arrived at the scene holding a gun

          and a rifle. It is further alleged that a co-accused, the

          grandmother of the petitioner, arrived with cartridges. She

          handed the cartridges to her daughter-in-law, who then passed

          them to the petitioner and his father. Thereafter, the father of the

          petitioner loaded a cartridge into the gun and fired at the

          informant’s husband's face, causing him to collapse and die on

          the spot.

                       4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

          petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits

          that from the contents of the F.I.R., it is clear that a land dispute

          was ongoing between the parties. He further submits that the

          allegations are general and omnibus in nature, and there is no

          specific overt act attributed to the petitioner. He further submits

          that it has only been alleged in the F.I.R. that the petitioner was

          standing near the place of occurrence. Counsel further submits

          that the petitioner has already completed his B.Sc. and is

          currently pursuing Teachers’ Training at Ramkripal Teacher

          Training College, Harnaut meaning there is no chance of him
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16364 of 2026(4) dt.02-06-2026
                                            3/4




          absconding. Counsel emphasizes that although it is alleged a

          rifle was in the petitioner's hand, the said rifle, being without

          cartridges, should basically be treated as a lathi. Furthermore,

          since there is no act or overt act attributed to him, there is a lack

          of common intention. He further submits that the mother of the

          petitioner has already been granted anticipatory bail by a

          coordinate Bench of this Court, therefore, the petitioner should

          also be granted anticipatory bail.

                       5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for

          bail and submits that it is specifically alleged in the F.I.R. that

          the petitioner and his father were present with a gun and a rifle.

          It is true that the shot was fired by the father of the petitioner

          and the petitioner himself did not fire, but arriving together with

          deadly weapons indicates that they reached the scene with a

          common intention. The fact that one of the persons fired and the

          other did not does not mean the petitioner is innocent.

          Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is innocent.

                       6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

          present case, particularly upon perusal of the case diary and the

          postmortem report, it is true that only one injury was found on

          the body of the deceased. However, the petitioner was present

          on the spot with a deadly weapon, a fact which has been
          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16364 of 2026(4) dt.02-06-2026
                                                      4/4




                    supported by independent witnesses. Although no specific overt

                    act is attributed to the petitioner, since he was present at the

                    place of occurrence with a deadly weapon, this Court is not

                    inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly,

                    the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby

                    rejected.



                                                                    (Dr. Anshuman, J.)


Aman Kumar/-

U     T