Patna High Court
NishuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Nishu, sought anticipatory bail in a shooting case (PS Case No. 96 of 2026) where he is charged under Sections 191(3), 190, 109, 118(1) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 and Sections 25(1‑B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act. The State argued that CCTV footage recorded the petitioner at the scene and that granting bail could enable him to tamper with evidence or abscond, despite the victim’s statement not naming the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the victim’s statement implicated only other accused and that a co‑accused, Rahul Kumar Gaurav, had already been granted anticipatory bail. The court examined the material evidence, the risk of interference with the investigation, and the precedent of bail being denied where identification is established. Concluding that the risk of tampering and absconding outweighed the petitioner’s arguments, the court refused to extend anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite CCTV identification linking him to the shooting.
- Whether the victim’s statement, which does not name the petitioner, is sufficient to deny bail.
- Whether the risk of the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence justifies denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)(a), 27
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 109, 118(1), 190, 191(3)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- shooting case
- CCTV evidence
- arms act
- bail denial
- evidence tampering
- absconding risk
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25203 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-96 Year-2026 Thana- BUDDHACOLONY District- Patna
======================================================
Nishu S/O Dhirendra Ray R/O Mohalla- New Punaichak, P.O.- GPO Main,
P.S.- Kotwali, District- Patna, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Awnish Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 29-04-2026 1. Heard learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner, Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh assisted by learned
Advocate, Mr. Awnish Kumar and learned A.P.P. for the State,
Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Buddha Colony P.S. Case No. 96 of 2026 for the offences
punishable under Sections 191(3), 190, 109 and 118(1) of the
BNS, 2023 read with Sections 25(1-B) (a) and 27 of the Arms
Act.
3. The SHO, Budha Colony P.S. and the Investigating
Officer of the case, in compliance of the order dated 27.04.2026,
are present in the Court.
4. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that similarly situated co-accused Rahul
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25203 of 2026(4) dt.29-04-2026
2/4
Kumar Gaurav @ Prince Kumar has been granted the privilege
of anticipatory bail by a learned Co-ordinate bench of this
Court, on which the learned APP submits that no doubt Rahul
Kumar Gaurav has been granted the privilege of anticipatory
bail, on the issue that his name transpired in the confessional
statement, it is next submitted that confessional statement in
police custody does not have any evidentiary value, but then
whether police collected any subsequent material connecting the
petitioner with the offence is an aspect which needs to be
appreciated.
5. The learned APP for the State next submits that it is
a case where Vikash is alleged to have been shot by the
unknown accused persons. It is next submitted that during the
course of investigation based on CCTV footage, the police
recorded the description of the accused present at the place of
occurrence at Para-75 of the case diary, it is further submitted
that after recording the description of the accused persons
present at the place of occurrence, the police subsequently
investigated that who were the accused persons who were
present at the place of occurrence and based on the CCTV
footage several accused were identified including the petitioner
whose name stands recorded at Para-77 of the case diary.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25203 of 2026(4) dt.29-04-2026
3/4
6. The SHO, who is present in the Court, also submits
to the same effect.
7. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner, at this stage, submits that it is not in dispute that
Vikash got shot and received five firearm injuries, but then
statement of Vikash was recorded at Medanta hospital by the
police which finds mention at Para-71 of the case diary. It is
next submitted that from perusal of the statement of Vikash, it
would manifest that he has stated that he was called by one
Putus to celebrate his birthday and accordingly he had gone to
the place of occurrence where Bholu along with others were
also present and some dispute arose in between Bholu and
Putus, as such, he intervened and asked Bholu as to why he
pushed Putus, on which Bholu and one another accused fired at
him leading to five firearm injuries, it is thus submitted that
Vikash has not even remotely suggested that it was petitioner
who committed the occurrence of firing nor names the
petitioner, on which the learned APP submits that Vikash may
not be knowing the petitioner and the police is investigating the
matter, but then Vikash got shot though by Bholu and one
another person but from the CCTV footage, it is clear that
petitioner was also present at the place of occurrence which
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.25203 of 2026(4) dt.29-04-2026
4/4
stands recorded at Para-77 of the case diary, as such, the
investigation presently is continuing and if privilege of
anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioner may abscond, on
which the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that a supplementary affidavit has been filed
on behalf of the petitioner wherein it has been specifically
pleaded that petitioner is a registered Contractor with the Public
Works Department, Bihar, on which the learned APP submits
that occurrence of firing took place in Patna, Vikash was shot
and petitioner from the CCTV footage has been identified,
hence, if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the
petitioner, the petitioner may also try to tamper with the
evidence.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail
application stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…