Patna High Court
Piyush KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that, given the petitioner’s clean antecedent, lack of incriminating material and the fact that he is not named in the FIR, bail should be granted.
Summary
The petitioner, Piyush Kumar, was arrested in connection with a shooting incident alleged under Sections 109 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that unknown assailants on a motorcycle fired at an informant, but the petitioner was not named in the FIR and only a mobile phone was recovered from him. He has been in custody since 20‑02‑2026 and maintains a clean antecedent. The petitioner’s counsel argued that he was falsely implicated and that there is insufficient incriminating evidence. The State opposed bail, but the court, after considering the lack of identification of the accused, the clean record and the paucity of material, ordered his release on bail with a bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties, noting that the order is limited to bail and does not prejudice the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the charges under Sections 109 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
- Whether the absence of the petitioner’s name in the FIR and lack of incriminating material justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109, 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Arms Act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- false implication
- clean antecedent
- FIR
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26052 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2026 Thana- KRITYANAND NAGAR District- Purnia
======================================================
Piyush Kumar S/o Pankaj Kumar Yadav R/o Village - Baghmara, Bela, P.S -
K. Nagar, P.O- Belarikabganj, District - Purnia
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Abhishek Ranjan, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Upendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 20-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with K.
Nagar P.S. Case No. 31 of 2026 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 109 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, unknown criminals
riding on a motorcycle had shot at the informant who was
returning after appearing in his intermediate examination.
4. The petitioner is in custody since 20.02.2026
having clean antecedent.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this
case. Further, the petitioner is not named in the FIR and no
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26052 of 2026(2) dt.20-04-2026
2/2
incriminating material, except a mobile phone, has been
recovered from his possession. Lastly, from the reading of the
FIR itself, it is clear that the pillion driver who is alleged to
have shot the informant could not be identified since his face
was covered and the motorcycle was speeding.
6. Learned APP appearing for the State opposes the
prayer for regular bail of the petitioner.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties,
let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing
bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned SDJM,
Purnia/ concerned Court in connection with K. Nagar P.S. Case
No. 31 of 2026.
8. It is, however, clarified that the observations made
herein are limited to the adjudication of the present bail
application and shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner at
any subsequent stage of the trial and this Court has not express
any opinion on the merits of the case.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T
Checking your session…