Patna High Court
Shankar KevatversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The court denied regular bail to the petitioner, finding the allegations serious and the trial underway.
Summary
The petitioner, Shankar Kevat, applied for regular bail in a case registered under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, alleging false implication and that he was not informed of the grounds of his arrest. The prosecution alleged that Kevat, on orders of a co-accused, fired indiscriminately, causing the death of the informant's uncle. The petitioner contended that the FIR was fabricated and that he had been in custody since July 2025 without a proper charge sheet. The State opposed bail, citing the post‑mortem report and the seriousness of the offences. The trial court report indicated that no prosecution witness had been examined, though the informant’s counsel later claimed a witness had been examined. After hearing both sides, the High Court held that, given the serious allegations and the commencement of trial, bail could not be granted and dismissed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite serious charges under IPC and the Arms Act
- Whether the petitioner was falsely implicated and denied communication of grounds of arrest
- Whether the trial proceedings and evidence justify denial of bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 232, 302, 341, 447, 504, 506
Subjects
- regular bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- false implication
- criminal procedure
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30829 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2024 Thana- SARMERA District- Nalanda
======================================================
Shankar Kevat S/o Late Sitaram Kewat Resident Of Village - Gaushnagar,
P.S. - Sarmera, District - Nalanda, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Parth Sarthy, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
3 01-07-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Sarmera P.S. Case no.
24 of 2024 registered under sections 302, 147, 148, 149, 341,
232, 447, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27
of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states
that the five named accused persons entered in the house of the
informant and started to hurl abuses. Thereafter it is stated that
on the orders of co-accused Dilip Raut the petitioner resorted to
indiscriminate firing with his pistol, as a result of which the
informant's uncle Ramashrey Yadav sustained gunshot injury in
his temple. He was taken to the hospital for treatment where the
doctor declared him dead. The accused persons escaped after the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30829 of 2026(3) dt.01-07-2026
2/3
occurrence.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the
case. No such occurrence as alleged in the FIR has taken place
in the manner alleged. At the time of arrest, the grounds of arrest
were not communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner is in
custody since 29.7. 2025 and chargesheet has been submitted in
the case.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP
for the State and learned counsel for the informant. Learned
counsel for the informant submits that the petitioner is the
assailant of the deceased. In reference to the order of the learned
trial Court it is submitted that the postmortem report supports
the prosecution case.
6. A report was called for from the learned trial Court.
As per the report received contained in letter dated 28.5.2026 of
the District and Additional Session Judge 2 nd, Nalanda at
Biharsharif, no witness has been examined on behalf of the
prosecution.
7. In response, it is submitted by learned counsel
appearing for the informant that as per oral instructions received
one witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.30829 of 2026(3) dt.01-07-2026
3/3
6.6.2026 and the other non-official witnesses will also depose
without delay.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the allegation against the petitioner in
the FIR wherein he is described as the assailant of the deceased
together with the trial having commenced in the learned trial
Court, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail
and the application is rejected.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Bibhash/Amit
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.