Patna High Court
Pintu Pandey @ Pintu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the court found the accusations serious and the petitioner’s involvement specific.
Summary
Petitioner Pintu Pandey sought anticipatory bail after being named in an FIR alleging that he assaulted and shot the father of an informant, causing grievous injury. The prosecution alleged offences under multiple sections of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner claimed innocence, asserting he was falsely implicated and has a clean record. The State and the informant’s counsel opposed bail, emphasizing the specific accusations, seriousness of the offences, and the grievous nature of the injury. The court, after considering the gravity of the allegations and the direct nature of the accusations, rejected the petition for anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in view of the specific accusations under the B.N.S. and the Arms Act
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- firearms offence
- grievous injury
- section 27 Arms Act
- B.N.S. offences
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2619 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-294 Year-2025 Thana- BAIKUNTHPUR District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Pintu Pandey @ Pintu Kumar S/O Late Dhenuk Pandey Resident of Village -
Chamanpura, P.S- Baikunthpur, Dist.- Gopalganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Subhash Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 06-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State and
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2),
127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 109(1), 329(3), 351(3), 352 and
3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that this
petitioner abused and assaulted father of informant and fired
upon him due to which, father of informant sustained gun shot
injury.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2619 of 2026(4) dt.06-04-2026
2/2
committed no offence. As a matter of fact, both parties are
Gotiyas and petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case
with ulterior motive. Petitioner claims clean antecedents.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and
learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and
submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and there is
specific accusation that he shot father of informant due to which
he sustained fire arm injury. Doctor has found the injury,
sustained by the injured, grievous in nature.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, specific and direct nature of accusation, gravity of offence
and nature of injuries allegedly caused by this petitioner, the
prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…