Patna High Court

Purushottam @ Purushottam Kumar @ Purushottam Paswan @ Sonu Paswan @ Sonu KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 11 May 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH

Holding

Given the specific and direct accusations, the gravity of the offences and the petitioner’s criminal antecedent, the court rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail.

Summary

The petitioner sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case alleging assault with a pistol, forced signing of blank papers and multiple offences under the B.N.S. and the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that on 10 February 2026 the petitioner, along with others, assaulted an informant at Kosi bridge and later at Kamat, coercing signatures on blank documents. The petitioner pleaded innocence, claiming false implication and an ulterior motive. The State opposed bail, highlighting the petitioner’s inclusion in the FIR, the specific and grave nature of the accusations, and his prior criminal antecedent. Considering the seriousness of the charges, the direct accusations and the petitioner’s criminal record, the court rejected the anticipatory bail application.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the specific accusations and seriousness of the offences.
Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent justifies denial of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27
B.N.S. — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 118(1), 119(2), 126(2), 303(2), 308(5), 3(5), 352

Subjects

anticipatory bail
assault
arms act
criminal antecedent
B.N.S.
gravity of offence

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27782 of 2026
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-202 Year-2026 Thana- KATIHAR NAGAR District- Katihar
                 ======================================================
                 Purushottam @ Purushottam Kumar @ Purushottam Paswan @ Sonu Paswan
                 @ Sonu Kumar S/O Amar Singh Paswan @ Amar Jha @ Amar Paswan R/O
                 Vill.- Manihari Ghat Road, P.S.- Manihari, Dist.- Katihar.

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus

                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner      :        Mr. Gopal Kumar Jha, Advocate
                 For the State           :        Mr. Sunil Kumar Pandey, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   11-05-2026                  Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case

                   registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2),

                   115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109, 119(2), 308(5), 303(2), 352 and

                   3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

                                3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10.02.2026

                   at about 2 PM, informant was called near Kosi bridge by all the

                   named accused persons, including this petitioner and when he

                   went there to see the land, he was assaulted by the accused

                   persons on the point of pistol. It is further alleged that the

                   informant was taken from Kosi bridge to Kamat where he was

                   again brutally assaulted by all the accused persons and they also
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27782 of 2026(2) dt.11-05-2026
                                                         2/2




                       took his signature on four blank papers.

                                    4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on

                       behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has

                       committed no offence. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in

                       this case with ulterior motive.

                                    5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has

                       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, along with other named

                       accused persons, brutally assaulted the informant and forcibly

                       got his signatures on blank papers. Petitioner has got one

                       criminal antecedent.

                                    6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

                       case, specific and direct nature of accusation, gravity of offence

                       and criminal antecedent of the petitioner, the prayer for grant of

                       anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected.



                                             (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.