Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Kunal Kumar Singh @ Kunal SinghversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

Bail was not granted to the petitioner at this stage.

Summary

Kunal Kumar Singh was charged under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (147, 148, 149, 307, 327, 384, 386, 506, 427) and Section 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly firing 2‑3 shots at Vivek Kumar Singh in a land dispute. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the victim sustained a chest wound and rib fractures, while the petitioner himself was uninjured. The State opposed bail, highlighting the petitioner’s criminal antecedent of seven prior cases. After hearing both sides, the court declined to grant bail, directing that the petitioner may renew the prayer after six months if the trial remains pending, and ordered the trial court to expedite the trial. The bail application was therefore dismissed at this stage.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the seriousness of the offences and his criminal antecedents
  • Whether the petitioner poses a risk of tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • Indian Penal Code
  • Arms Act
  • land dispute
  • criminal antecedent
  • trial expeditious

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31145 of 2026
                         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2024 Thana- Lokha District- Supaul
                 ======================================================
                 Kunal Kumar Singh @ Kunal Singh S/O Ratan Kumar Singh R/O Vill.-
                 Baruari West Ward no. 5, P.S. and Dist.- Supaul.
                                                                         ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                  ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   12-05-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection

                   with Laukaha P.S. Case No.12 of 2024 registered for the offence

                   punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 327, 427, 384,

                   386 & 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the

                   Arms Act.

                                3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the

                   petitioner has made 2-3 fires at one Vivek Kumar Singh

                   @Mausam Kumar Singh due to land dispute.

                                4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner has submitted that there is also a counter version of

                   this case. Learned counsel has submitted that from perusal of

                   the injury report of Vivek Kumar Singh it is clear that he has

                   received entry wound at right lateral chest wall. Learned counsel
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31145 of 2026(2) dt.12-05-2026
                                                        2/2




                      for the petitioner has submitted that there is also fracture antero

                      lateral aspect of 5th rib and posterior aspect of 9th rib.

                                   5. On being asked whether the petitioner has received

                      any injury or not, learned counsel for the petitioner has

                      submitted that petitioner has not received any injury.

                                   6. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP

                      for the State. He has submitted that the petitioner is having

                      criminal antecedent of seven cases.

                                   7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                      considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not

                      inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, however, he

                      may renew his prayer for bail after six months, if the trial is not

                      concluded. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial.



                                             (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.