Patna High Court
Amrendra Kumar @ Amrendra @ GoluversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the petitioner is specifically alleged to have fired the shot that caused the death of Munni Devi.
Summary
The petitioner, Amrendra Kumar, applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case where he was alleged to have fired at an informant’s side, missing the target and striking a passerby, Munni Devi, who later died. The FIR charges him under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including offences relating to murder, attempt to cause death, and use of a firearm. The petitioner argued that the FIR does not specifically link him to the injury of the passerby and that only one cartridge was recovered, contending that co‑accused had already been granted anticipatory bail. The State opposed, asserting that the petitioner was the one who fired the shot that caused the death and therefore should not be granted bail. The Court, after considering the specific allegation that the petitioner’s shot hit the passerby, declined to grant anticipatory bail, directing the petitioner to seek regular bail before the trial court if desired. The order clarified that its observations would not prejudice the trial proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner despite a specific allegation that his shot caused the death of a passerby
- Whether the presence of multiple serious charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, precludes the grant of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 115(2), 125(A), 125(b), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- firearm offence
- murder
- criminal procedure
- bail jurisprudence
- Patna High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33441 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-152 Year-2025 Thana- AGIAON District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Amrendra Kumar @ Amrendra @ Golu S/o Ram Sinhasan Singh Resident of
Village- Poswa, P.S.- Agiaon (G), District- Bhojpur (Ara)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 18-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State through virtual mode.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with
Agiaon(G) P.S. Case No. 152 of 2025 registered for the offences
under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 125(A), 125(b), 109(1), 352,
351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had
fired upon the informant’s side, however, the shot allegedly
missed the informant and others and it hit a passerby, namely,
Munni Devi, on her chest, who subsequently died during the
course of treatment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and from a
reading of the FIR, it would be evident that although the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33441 of 2026(2) dt.18-05-2026
2/3
petitioner is alleged to have fired upon the informant’s side, but
none of the informant’s side sustained any injury and the firearm
injury was received by a passerby, namely Munni Devi. It has
further been submitted that though there is allegation of
repeated firing, however, only one cartridge has been recovered
by the police from the place of occurrence. It has next been
submitted that the co-accused persons, namely Ram Sighasan
Singh and Gaurav Kumar, have already been granted
anticipatory bail by this Hon’ble Court.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer
for anticipatory bail and submitted that it was the petitioner who
had fired upon the informant’s side, however, the shot missed
the target and it hit the passerby, namely Munni Devi. It has
been submitted that the petitioner cannot be absolved of the
allegation that it was he who had fired from the said pistol and
therefore, he does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking
into account that there is specific allegation against the
petitioner of having fired the shot which hit the passerby,
namely Munni Devi, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail
to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33441 of 2026(2) dt.18-05-2026
3/3
rejected.
8. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to
approach the learned Trial Court, which shall consider any
prayer for regular bail on its own merits, without being
prejudiced by the rejection of the anticipatory bail application
and if possible, the same shall be disposed of on the very same
day.
9. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made in
this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/ayushkr-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.