Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Pintu KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Pintu Kumar, was named in FIR No.191 of 2025 for allegedly taking part in an unlawful assembly that fired indiscriminately at the husband of an informant, resulting in his death. He filed an application for anticipatory bail, claiming innocence and alleging that he was falsely implicated due to a land dispute. The State opposed the bail, highlighting specific accusations against the petitioner and his three prior criminal convictions. The court examined the seriousness of the charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act, as well as the petitioner’s criminal antecedents. Considering the nature of the allegation and the prior record, the court refused the anticipatory bail application.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the allegations of unlawful assembly, firing, and homicide under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act.
  • Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents justify denial of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • unlawful assembly
  • Arms Act
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
  • criminal antecedent
  • FIR
  • bail refusal

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17590 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-191 Year-2025 Thana- HILSA District- Nalanda
                 ======================================================
                 Pintu Kumar S/O Ram Pravesh Sharma Resident of Village- Momindpur,
                 Police Station- Hilsa, District- Nalanda.

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   01-04-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

                                2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in Hilsa P. S. Case No.

                   191 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under

                   Sections 103(1), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and

                   Section 27 of the Arms Act.

                                3. As per F.I.R., all the named accused persons formed

                   unlawful assembly and this petitioner along with co-accused

                   Ram Pravesh Sharma, Sanjay Prasad, Sachin Kumar and

                   Chandrajit Kumar fired indiscriminately upon the husband of

                   informant as a result of which, he died on the way to the

                   hospital.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Petitioner

                   has falsely been implicated in this case due to admitted land
          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17590 of 2026(2) dt.01-04-2026
                                                      2/2




                    dispute. Allegation of firing is general and omnibus.

                                 5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed

                    the bail application and submitted that there is specific

                    accusation that this petitioner along with other accused persons

                    indiscriminately fired upon the deceased and petitioner has got

                    three criminal antecedent.

                                 6. Considering the nature of accusation and criminal

                    antecedents, prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is

                    refused.



                                          (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-

U         T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.