Patna High Court
Solu kumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Summary
The petitioner, Solu Kumar, was charged in Dhanarua police case No. 709 of 2025 for offences under Sections 126(2), 109(1), 61(2), 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner handed a pistol to co‑accused Kundan Kumar, directing him to kill an informant who was later shot at, though the bullet missed. The petitioner contended he was not present at the scene, had no prior criminal record, and the FIR was motivated by personal enmity. The State opposed bail, arguing the petitioner participated in the assault. The court examined the evidence, noting the only substantive allegation against the petitioner was the act of handing over the weapon, and found no proof of his direct involvement in firing. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.10,000 bond, two sureties, and verification of antecedents under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. 2023. The bail order included a condition for cancellation if the petitioner concealed any criminal antecedent.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the alleged act of handing over a pistol constitutes a cognizable offence warranting denial of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and lack of direct participation in the shooting justify bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 126(2), 351(2), 482(2), 61(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- Arms Act
- false implication
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32130 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-709 Year-2025 Thana- DHANARUA District- Patna
======================================================
Solu kumar S/o Upendra Prasad R/o Village - Chakjohra, Sonmai, P.S. -
Dhanarua, Distt. - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jay Ram Prasad, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 24-06-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends in connection with
Dhanarua P.S. Case No. 709 of 2025, for offences under
Sections 126(2), 109(1), 61(2), 351(2) of B.N.S.S., 2023 and
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, which has been lodged
on the basis of the written report submitted by the informant to
the affect that on the date of occurrence, the informant was
coming with his tractor after dropping cement. On way two
persons/boys intercepted and asked for his name. When the
informant disclosed his name, co-accused Kundan Kumar took
out a pistol and fired upon the informant, which hit him on his
right hand. When the informant tried to flee, then the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32130 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
2/4
took out a country made pistol from his waist and handed it over
to co-accused Kundan Kumar and told him to kill the informant,
while he was escaping. Upon which co-accused Kundan Kumar
fired at the informant, however the bullet did not hit him. Upon
seeing the passersby, both the accused persons fled away from
the place of occurrence, threatening the informant that he will
be killed later on.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence.
The petition was not even present at the place of occurrence and
the allegation of firing has been leveled against co-accused
Kundan Kumar. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that petitioner and the informant are co-villagers and
due to previous enimity, the present first information report has
been lodged. The informant has falsely implicated the petitioner
in the present case due to previous enimity and village politics.
No arms was recovered from the possession of the petitioner
and petitioner has got a clean antecedent.
5. Per Contra, learned APP for the State vehemently
opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submits
that the petitioner along with co-accused Kundan Kumar fired at
the informant, due to which he sustained injuries and was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32130 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
3/4
treated.
6. Having considered the rival submissions and after
going through the records, it appears that the allegation of firing
and injuring the informant, is against co-accused Kundan
Kumar. The only allegation, which has been leveled against the
petitioner is that he took out a pistol from his waist and handed
it over to the co-accused Kundan Kumar with a direction to kill
the informant. On the order given by the petitioner, co-accused
Kundan Kumar fired at the informant, however the bullet did
not hit him. The petitioner has got a clean antecedent.
Considering the above, let the petitioner above named in the
event of arrest/surrender within a period of six weeks from
today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds
of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned S.D.J.M,
Masaurhi, Patna in connection with Dhanarua P.S. Case No.709
of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section
482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and
subject to the following condition:-
(I) That the learned court concerned shall verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it
is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32130 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026
4/4
antecedent, the court concerned shall take step for cancellation
of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail
bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be
delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
shital/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.