Patna High Court
PINTU KUMAR @ PINTU SINGH @ PINTU BHAGAT @ PINTU KUMAR SINGHversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court refused to quash the FIR and ordered the investigating officer and the concerned court to examine the factual inconsistencies concerning the petitioner's alleged participation.
Summary
Petitioner Pintu Kumar filed an application to quash FIR No. 558 of 2022, which alleged his participation in an armed assault. He contended that he was in judicial custody from 6 September 2022 until at least 26 November 2022, making it impossible for him to be present at the alleged incident on 22 November 2022. The State and the second opposite party opposed the quash petition. The Court noted that the FIR is still at the investigation stage and that other accused are also under investigation. It declined to quash the FIR, directing the investigating officer and the concerned court to examine the factual contradictions regarding the petitioner's alleged involvement. The application was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR can be quashed on the ground that the petitioner was in custody at the time of the alleged offence.
- Whether the court may intervene to quash an FIR that is still at the investigation stage.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)a, 26(i), 27, 35
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 307, 323, 341, 504
Subjects
- quash petition
- FIR
- custody
- investigation stage
- false allegations
- criminal procedure
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20384 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-558 Year-2022 Thana- BHORE District- Gopalganj
======================================================
PINTU KUMAR @ PINTU SINGH @ PINTU BHAGAT @ PINTU
KUMAR SINGH Son of Maya Singh @ Maya Bhagat Resident of village -
Atana, Arna Bazar, P.S.- Uchakagaon, District - Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Satrughan Singh S/O Late Subhash Bhagat R/O Village- Sukaldumar, P.S.-
Bhore, District- Gopalganj
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subhangi Pandey, Adv.
Mr.Anand Vardhan, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Murli Dhar, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Satyendra Rai, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
5 06-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party
no.2.
2. The present application has been filed for quashing
for F.I.R bearing Bhore P.S. Case No. 558 of 2022 dated
22.11.2022, for the offence under Sections 323, 341, 307, 504
and 120B of Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-B)a, 26(i), 27
and 35 of Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out a
glaring situation wherein, in the F.I.R, the name of the petitioner
features as an accused with the allegations that he along with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20384 of 2023(5) dt.06-02-2026
2/3
others, came on motorcycle, armed with country made pistol
and indulged in threatening and also resorted to firing, whereas
it would be apparent from an order dated 26.11.2022 passed by
this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 61050 of 2022 that the present
petitioner was in custody in Uchakagaon P.S. Case No. 227 of
2021 since 06.09.2022, which fact has been noted in the said
order by which bail was granted to the petitioner. It is further
submitted that the petitioner was finally released on 07.12.2022.
Be that as it may, it remains a fact which can be seen from open
eyes that the petitioner was in custody from 06.09.2022 to at
least 26.11.2022, whereas the F.I.R. in which he has been made
an accused is dated 22.11.2022. As such, the presence of the
petitioner at the place of occurrence is humanly and practically
not possible and this fact is a clear pointer towards the falsity of
the F.I.R., at least with regard to the present petitioner.
4. Learned APP for the State as also learned counsel
for the opposite party no.2 opposed the present application for
quashing of F.I.R.
5. Taking into consideration the fact that F.I.R is at the
investigation stage and there are other accused persons also
whose cases are being investigated, this Court would not quash
the F.I.R but would direct the Investigating Officer as also the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20384 of 2023(5) dt.06-02-2026
3/3
Court concerned to look into such glaring facts which point
towards non-complicity of the petitioner in the said offence.
6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the
present application is disposed of.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Harsh/-
U T
Checking your session…