Patna High Court
Rampyare Chauhan @ Rampyare KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ANIL KUMAR SINHA
Holding
Regular bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
Rampyare Chauhan was charged with offences under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Arms Act for allegedly shooting a co‑villager during a dispute over a loan. The petitioner sought regular bail, claiming innocence, lack of eyewitnesses, and that he would not abscond. The informant opposed bail, highlighting the grievous gunshot wound sustained by the victim and the direct allegation against the petitioner. The court noted the seriousness of the injury and the nature of the charges, and was not persuaded by the bail arguments. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed, with a direction that the petitioner may re‑apply after nine months if the trial shows no progress.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the accused in a case involving grievous gunshot injury under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act
- Whether the accused poses a risk of absconding or tampering with evidence
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 126(2), 127(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- regular bail
- grievous hurt
- arms act
- loan dispute
- shooting
- criminal procedure
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2755 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-104 Year-2025 Thana- NARDIGANJ District- Nawada
======================================================
Rampyare Chauhan @ Rampyare Kumar Son of Lal Keshar Chauhan R/o
Village - Charna Chatar, P.S.- Nardiganj, Distt. - Nawada.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shivendra Kumar Sinha
Mr.Ranjeet Patel
For the State : Mr.Md. Mushtaque Alam
For the informant : Mr. Arjun Prasad
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
4 13-05-2026 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel
for the informant and learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with
Nardiganj Police Station Case No. 104 of 2025, dated
15.03.2025, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 126(2)/127(2)/352/351(2)/109/3(5) of the
Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms
Act.
3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report,
is that the co-villager of the informant, namely, Rampyare
Chauhan (petitioner) took a loan of Rs. 14,000/- from the
brother of the informant, out of which he had refunded a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2755 of 2026(4) dt.13-05-2026
2/3
sum of Rs. 10,000/- and for rest Rs. 4,000/-, he had
assured to refund the same at the time of Holi. On
14.03.2025, at about 8 PM, the brother of the informant
told the petitioner to refund the due amount, upon which
hot exchange of words took place between them, upon
which the father of the petitioner came and told to come
with him and he will refund the money. The brother of the
informant accompanied him and when they reached near
Pahari Chapakal, the petitioner, along with others, started
abusing the brother of the informant and the petitioner
shot him by country-made pistol, due to which he
sustained bullet injury in his left temporal region.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in
this case. He further submits that both the parties are co-
villagers and agnates. He further submits that during
investigation, neither the injured nor his father have been
examined by the police. He further submits that all the
witnesses are not the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. He
further submits that the petitioner is in custody since
07.11.2025 and charge sheet has already been submitted
against him and as such there is no likelihood that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2755 of 2026(4) dt.13-05-2026
3/3
petitioner will abscond and/or tamper with the evidence.
5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the informant
vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that
the injured has sustained lacerated wound on the left side
of face with charring/burning around the wound, which is
grievous in nature and the same corroborates the
allegation made in the First Information Report. He next
submits that there is direct allegation against the
petitioner of causing bullet injury to the injured.
6. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and taking
into consideration the fact that the injured has received
gun shot injury, attributable to the petitioner and the same
is grievous in nature, I am not inclined to grant regular
bail to the petitioner.
7. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.
8. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer after
completing nine months in custody, if the trial does not
show any progress.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J.)
Prabhakar Anand/-
U √ T √
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.