Patna High Court
Chintu Kumar @ Chintu YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail is granted to the petitioner subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and specified conditions.
Summary
Chintu Kumar, accused of offences under IPC sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 307, 326 and Arms Act section 27 arising from a land‑dispute shooting on 2‑Dec‑2023, has been in custody since 19‑May‑2025. He sought bail, claiming a clean antecedent and pointing out that a co‑accused in the same case had been granted bail. The prosecution opposed bail, emphasizing the specific allegation that the petitioner fired at the victim, whose bullet remained lodged. The Court noted the petitioner’s clean record, the precedent of bail to a similarly situated co‑accused, and the principle of liberty, and therefore ordered bail on a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties and several conditions. The bail order is subject to cancellation if the petitioner absents himself from two consecutive hearings, tampers with evidence or witnesses, or conceals any criminal antecedent.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the offences alleged under the IPC and Arms Act.
- Whether the grant of bail to a co‑accused in the same case warrants similar relief to the petitioner.
- Whether the specific allegation of firing at the victim justifies denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 307, 326, 341
Subjects
- bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- land dispute
- criminal antecedent
- serious offences
- conditions of bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33032 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-393 Year-2023 Thana- ATHMALGOLA District- Patna
======================================================
Chintu Kumar @ Chintu Yadav S/o Late Akhilesh Kumar @ Akhilesh Yadav
Resident of village - Chakdaulat, P.S.- Bakhtiyarpur, Distt.- Patna, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Shashi Priya Pathak, Advocate
Mr. Ambrish Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bharat Lal, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 08-07-2026 Heard Ms. Shashi Priya Pathak, learned counsel for
the petitioner, Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the
Informant and Mr. Bharat Lal, learned APP for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
19.05.2025, in connection with Athmalgola P.S. Case No. 393 of
2023, F.I.R. dated 03.12.2023 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 307, 326 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 02.12.2023
all F.I.R. named accused persons fired upon the informant and
others due to which they sustained injuries.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has been falsely
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33032 of 2026(3) dt.08-07-2026
2/4
implicated in the present case. It appears from the F.I.R.itself
that due to admitted land dispute, the present occurrence had
taken place. Although, there is specific allegation against the
petitioner that he along with other co-accused persons have fired
upon Bhagwat Singh and said Bhagwat Singh has received
bullet injury. He further submits that the allegation against the
petitioner that the petitioner has fired upon the back side of
Bhagwat Singh, another accused has also fired upon Bhagwat
Singh upon the neck and back side and other co-accused perons
have fired upon his hand (injured person). He further submits
that co-accused person, namely, Sumer Singh @ Somar Singh
@ Surendra Singh has been granted regular bail by this Court
vide order dated 25.03.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 84096 of
2025. He further submits that the police after investigation
submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is
in custody since 19.05.2025 more than a year.
5. Learned counsel for the Informant as well as
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other
hand, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner
and submits that from perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that there
is specific and direct allegation against the petitioner that he has
fired upon the victim, namely, Bhagat Singh and the bullet
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33032 of 2026(3) dt.08-07-2026
3/4
which was fired by the petitioner is still in the body of the
injured person.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and the fact that the petitioner having clean antecedent and
similarly situated co-accused person has been granted bail by
this Court, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail
on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-V, Barh, Patna in
connection with Athmalgola P.S. Case No. 393 of 2023, subject
to the following conditions :-
(1) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
(2) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
(3) And, further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33032 of 2026(3) dt.08-07-2026
4/4
criminal antecedents, the court below 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.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ibrar//-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.