Arun Kumar Tiwari @ Arun TiwariversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1657 of 2026
                 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-212 Year-2025 Thana- RAMGARH District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
                 ======================================================
                 Arun Kumar Tiwari @ Arun Tiwari S/O Rajendra Tiwari R/O Village-
                 Anantpura, P.S.- Ramgarh, Distt.- Kaimur, Bhabhua.
                                                                           ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                    ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Subhash Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   05-02-2026                  1. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.

                   Chandra Bhushan Prasad, 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 103(1) and

                   3(5) of the BNS as well as Sections 25(1-b)(a), 26, 27 and 35 of

                   the Arms Act.

                                3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits

                   that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant

                   alleges that his son was coming back home after cleaning the

                   temple, when he was intercepted by the accused persons including

                   the petitioner and the accused persons said to kill him on which

                   Santosh fired from the roof top of Mahima Shaw but missed

                   thereafter again fired causing injury on chest leading to his death.

                                4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1657 of 2026(2) dt.05-02-2026
                                            2/3




          petitioner submits that petitioner being brother of Santosh has been

          falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant with general

          and omnibus allegation. It is further submitted that from perusal of

          the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that specific

          allegation of firing is against Santoh but then during the course of

          investigation, the petitioner came to be implicated on the ground

          that he had given the gun to Santosh from which he fired. It is next

          submitted that informant in the FIR does not even remotely

          suggest that it was this petitioner who had given the gun to

          Santosh for committing the occurrence but then during the course

          of investigation, by way of afterthought, the petitioner was also

          implicated.      It is also submitted that father of the petitioner,

          namely, Rajendra Tiwari had approached this Court seeking

          anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 83979 of 2025 and the

          same came to be allowed by an order dated 05.02.2026. It is

          submitted that petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in

          the investigation to prove his innocence.

                       5. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned A.P.P. for the

          State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant

          opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner but then

          are not in a position to rebut the submissions of the learned Senior

          Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that it was Santosh

          who is alleged to have caused firearm injury to the son of the
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1657 of 2026(2) dt.05-02-2026
                                                       3/3




                     informant and the informant in the FIR does not even remotely

                     suggest that the gun was given by the petitioner to Santosh for

                     committing the occurrence.

                                  6. Considering the submissions made by the learned

                     Senior Counsel for the petitioner, let the petitioner above-named,

                     in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial court

                     within a period of six weeks from today, be released on

                     anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees

                     Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the

                     satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is

                     pending/Successor Court in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case

                     No. 212 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under

                     Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the BNSS.

                                  7. However, it is made clear that if the investigating

                     officer of the case files an application bringing to the notice of the

                     learned trial court that petitioner despite giving assurance to this

                     Court is not cooperating in the investigation, the learned trial court

                     shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.


                                                                         (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T