Patna High Court
Pappu SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to bond and conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, Pappu Singh and Laxman Pandey, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a 2017 murder case (Chandradeep P.S. Case No.06) involving offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that the accused, armed with pistols, shot the informant's father, resulting in death, with a motive linked to prior political enmity. The petitioners argued that the investigation yielded no incriminating material against them and that the FIR was based solely on the informant's statement; petitioner No.1 had prior criminal antecedents but had secured final forms in earlier cases, while petitioner No.2 had none. The court noted the lack of specific allegations against the petitioners and considered their criminal records, concluding that anticipatory bail was appropriate. Accordingly, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, and conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in the absence of specific incriminating material.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 302, 34, 448, 504, 506
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- murder
- arms act
- bail conditions
- section 438
- section 482
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27680 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2017 Thana- CHANDRADIP District- Jamui
======================================================
1. Pappu Singh S/o Late Sudama Singh R/o Village - Noni, P.S - Chandradeep,
District - Jamui
2. Laxman Pandey @ Amit Kumar S/o Rajendra Pandey R/o Village - Noni,
P.S - Chandradeep, District - Jamui
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Arun Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anish Chandra
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 13-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in
connection with Chandradeep P.S. Case No.06 of 2017, F.I.R
dated 28.01.2017 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 302, 504, 506, 448 and 34 of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. According to prosecution case, in brief, is that the
informant alleged that on the night of 26.01.2017, the accused
persons came armed with pistols to the Dalan where his father,
Brindawan Singh, was sleeping and, after threatening the
informant, co-accused Pappu Singh and Laxman Pandey
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27680 of 2026(3) dt.13-05-2026
2/4
allegedly fired at his father, causing his death on the spot.
Thereafter, the accused persons fled away. The FIR was lodged
on 28.01.2017 as the informant claimed he was in shock and
unable to give his statement earlier. The alleged motive behind
the occurrence is prior enmity relating to the PACCS election.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that,
upon investigation, final form was submitted in favour of
petitioner no.1. However, differing from the police report,
cognizance has been taken merely on the basis of the statement
of the informant, despite the fact that during investigation no
incriminating material was found against the petitioner and,
accordingly, he was not sent up for trial. It has further been
submitted that, so far as petitioner no.1 is concerned, out of
three criminal antecedents, final form has been submitted in
Chandradeep P.S. Case No.122 of 2016 and Chandradeep P.S.
Case No.43 of 2020, and in Mahuli P.S. Case No.43 of 2020 he
is on bail. So far as petitioner no.2 is concerned, he has no
criminal antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
there is no specific allegation against these petitioner rather the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27680 of 2026(3) dt.13-05-2026
3/4
allegations are general and omnibus and with respect to
petitioner No.1, out of three criminal antecedent, final form has
been submitted in Chandradeep P.S. Case No.122 of 2016 and in
Chandradeep P.S. Case No.43 of 2020 and Mahuli P.S. Case
No.43 of 2020, he is on bail and with respect to petitioner No.2,
he has no criminal antecedent. Accordingly, this Court is
inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the
petitioners.
7. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of
their arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period
of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, 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 A.C.J.M. 1st, Jamui, in connection with Chandradeep
P.S. Case No.06 of 2017 , subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure /
Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and
with other following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the family
member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide
official document/personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27680 of 2026(3) dt.13-05-2026
4/4
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
sharun/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.