Patna High Court

Manish KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 6 May 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: ARUN KUMAR JHA

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied.

Summary

The petitioner, Manish Kumar, applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a 2019 case alleging he fired at an informant, causing a wound to the right ear. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner shot the informant, supported by a medical report showing a lacerated wound, tattooing, and gunpowder residue. The petitioner claimed innocence, citing a police investigation that cleared him and a final report dated 28.07.2022 in his favour, and argued that the trial court erred in relying on the police report. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the specific allegation against the petitioner and his prior criminal record. Considering the seriousness of the allegation and the petitioner’s antecedents, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail under CrPC Section 438 should be granted to the petitioner in view of the specific allegation of firing at the informant
Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents justify denial of bail

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438
Indian Penal Code

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Criminal Procedure Code
Indian Penal Code
criminal antecedent
non-bailable warrant
injury report

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29952 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-49 Year-2019 Thana- PIRI BAZAR District- Lakhisarai
                 ======================================================
                 Manish Kumar Son of Subodh Mahto, Resident of Village- Maheshpur, PS-
                 Piri Bazaar, District -Lakhisarai.
                                                                          ... ... Petitioner
                                                    Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                   ... ... Opposite Party
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Mayank Bilochan, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   06-05-2026                     Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned A.P.P. for the State.

                                   2.    In    the    present      case,     the    petitioner        is

                   apprehending his arrest in connection with Piri Bazaar P.S. Case

                   No. 49 of 2019, dated 20.04.2019, registered for the offences

                   punishable under Sections of the Indian Penal Code.

                                   3. As per prosecution case, petitioner and other co-

                   accused persons surrounded the informant and this petitioner

                   fired upon the informant and the shot scratched over the right

                   ear of the informant. Other co-accused also fired upon the

                   informant, but the shot missed him.

                                   4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this

                   case. Learned counsel further submits that parties are co-

                   villagers and there is previous enmity between them due to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29952 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
                                            2/3




          Panchayat elections as petitioner is the nephew of the then

          Mukhiya of the said Panchayat. Learned counsel next submits

          that the petitioner did not fire any shot upon the informant. After

          due investigation and on the basis of mobile location, the Police

          did not find the case true against the petitioner and submitted

          the final form 28.07.2022 in favour of the petitioner. However,

          the learned trial Court differing from the Police report, took

          cognizance against all the co-accused persons including this

          petitioner vide its order dated 09.07.2024 and non-bailable

          warrant was also issued against the petitioner. Learned counsel

          further submits that petitioner is having antecedent of two cases

          and one of the cases is lodged in the year 2002 and the other in

          the year 2019.

                          5. Learned APP opposes the submissions made on

          behalf of the petitioner and submits that there is specific

          allegation against the petitioner that he fired upon the informant

          and injury report shows a lacerated wound on the right side of

          the head over right year and tattooing was also found and gun

          powder was also found on the right side of face. Learned

          counsel further submits that petitioner is having antecedent of

          similar nature.

                          6. Having regard to the specific allegation of
          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29952 of 2026(2) dt.06-05-2026
                                                      3/3




                    opening fire levelled against the petitioner and also considering

                    his criminal antecedent, I am not inclined to enlarge the

                    petitioner on bail.

                                    7. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of

                    the petitioner stands rejected.



                                                              (Arun Kumar Jha, J)

Shahnawaz/-

U     T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…