Patna High Court
Kaushal SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner subject to a bond and specified conditions.
Summary
Kaushal Sharma was arrested on 19 November 2025 in connection with a FIR dated 4 September 2025 alleging that he, along with co‑accused, attacked an informant with firearms, causing a simple injury to the victim's stomach. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, pointing out that the FIR contains a general allegation against all accused and a specific allegation against him, but the injury was minor and he has no substantive evidence of his participation. The prosecution opposed bail, emphasizing the specific allegation that Sharma fired at the informant and noting his prior criminal antecedent for which he is already on bail. The court examined the nature of the injury, the specificity of the allegation, and the petitioner’s antecedent, and concluded that bail could be granted with appropriate safeguards. Accordingly, the court ordered his release on a bail bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions regarding trial cooperation, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of his criminal record. The order also stipulated that failure to appear for two consecutive dates without sufficient cause would lead to cancellation of bail.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case involving alleged firing at a victim under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita and the Arms Act, considering the specific allegation and the accused's prior criminal antecedent.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Arms Act
- assault with firearm
- injury
- criminal antecedent
- conditions of bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24180 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-533 Year-2025 Thana- DHANARUA District- Patna
======================================================
Kaushal Sharma Son of Late Bahadur Sharma Resident of Village - Neema,
P.S.- Dhanarua, Dist. - Patna, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar Roy, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 15-04-2026 Heard Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as Mr. Abhay Kumar Roy, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
19.11.2025 in connection with Dhanarua P.S. Case No. 533 of
2025, F.I.R. dated 04.09.2025 for the offences punishable under
Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay
Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of Arms Act.
3. According to prosecution case, the informant
alleged that when he was going to his field and reached village
Nima then the petitioner along with other co-accused persons,
all armed with weapons surrounded him and attacked him with
intention to kill and when he tried to run away, then this
petitioner fired upon him due to which he received injury in his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24180 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
2/4
stomach. The informant after tiding his wound with Gamcha
tried to flee a way but other accused persons started
indiscriminate firing on him but he anyhow reached his house
and thereafter he was taken to hospitals for treatment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
present case. It appears from the FIR that FIR is in two parts. In
first part there is general and omnibus allegation against all the
accused persons including the petitioner and in the second part
there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he fired
upon the informant. Although there is specific allegation against
the petitioner that he fired upon the informant and the informant
received injury but the injury report of the informant suggest
that injury inflicted upon him is simple in nature. He further
submits that the police after investigation submitted the charge
sheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since
19.11.2025.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner on the
ground that there is direct and specific allegation against the
petitioner that he fired upon the informant and informant
received injury but fairly submits that injury inflicted upon the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24180 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
3/4
injured person is simple in nature. He further submits that
petitioner carries one criminal antecedent in which he is on bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub-
Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Masaurhi, Patna in connection
with Dhanarua P.S. Case No. 533 of 2025, subject to the
following conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24180 of 2026(2) dt.15-04-2026
4/4
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…