Patna High Court
Rajeev Sharma @ Rajeev KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner on the basis of his clean antecedent and the lack of specific incriminating allegation against him in the FIR.
Summary
The petitioner, Rajeev Sharma, was arrested on 2 May 2026 in connection with a case alleging he participated in a shooting incident under Sections 109(1), 118(2), 3(5) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The prosecution’s case is based on a statement by a victim who described being shot by several individuals, naming two persons specifically and making a general allegation against the petitioner and others. The petitioner argued that he has a clean antecedent, that the FIR contains a specific allegation only against the named shooters, and that co‑accused have already been granted anticipatory bail by the same court. The State opposed bail, asserting the petitioner’s participation in the crime. The court, after considering the clean record and the nature of the allegations, granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions regarding cooperation, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the offences alleged.
- Whether the clean antecedent and the specific nature of the FIR allegations justify granting bail.
- Whether the grant of anticipatory bail to co‑accused influences the decision on bail for the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 27
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 109(1), 118(2), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- anticipatory bail
- clean antecedent
- Arms Act
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
- criminal procedure
- FIR
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40732 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-750 Year-2025 Thana- AURANGABAD TOWN District-
Aurangabad
======================================================
Rajeev Sharma @ Rajeev Kumar S/o Kamlesh Sharma Resident of Village -
Makhara, P.S.- Obra, District - Aurangabad, At Present Mohalla - Sri Krishna
Nagar, Ahri, P.S.- Aurangabad Town, District- Aurangabad
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amresh Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Singh
For the Informant : Mr. Prashant Kumar
: Mr. Shreyas Shridhar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 29-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
02.05.2026 in connection with Town P.S. Case No. 750 of 2025
for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(2), 3(5)
of B.N.S. 2023 and Section 27 of Arms Act, 1959.
3. According to prosecution case one Rahul Sharma,
made a fardbeyan before S.I. Sunil Kumar Yadav at Sadar
Hospital Aurangabad on 01.12.2025 at about 19.32 PM alleging
therein inter alia that I came to my camp from Shiv Ganj with a
labour and then Chunnu Pandey @ Kunal Pandey and Ankit
Pandey both of them called me from their respective came out at
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40732 of 2026(2) dt.29-06-2026
2/4
the same time then I was outside my house and with the
intention to kill me they fired at me with the pistol in their hand
in which one bullet hit my right leg, one bullet in the blind in
the left leg and one bullet in my thigh of the left leg. After
which BrajeshSharma, Rajesh Sharma (Petitioner), Kunal
Pandey, all of them together were incising there presser by
saying kill me give me burden after firing the shot on seeing the
crowed of people around, they went away from there and he
some how save my life by running away and with the help of
people, I came to sadar hospital where I am under going
treatment, F.I.R.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and is innocent and he has
falsely been implicated in the present case. It is next submitted
that from perusal of the FIR it appears that FIR is in two parts;
in first part there is direct and specific allegation of firing
attributed against Chunnu Pandey and Ankit Pandey and in
second part the there is general and omnibus allegation against
the petitioner and other co-accused persons. He further submits
that similarly situated, co-accused, namely, Brajesh Sharma @
Brajesh Kumar, Kunal Pandey @ Kunal Kumar and Sarwesh
Pandey @ Sarwesh Kumar have already been granted privilege
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40732 of 2026(2) dt.29-06-2026
3/4
of anticipatory bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 24.02.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 12309 of 2026,
order dated 15.05.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 34543 of 2026,
order dated 15.05.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 34590 of 2026
respectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that
petitioner is in custody since 02.05.2026.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State
has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and
submits that petitioner has participated in the present crime in
question.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and the fact that petitioner has clean antecedent, let the
petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Aurangabad in connection with Town P.S. Case No.
750 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:-
i. 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.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40732 of 2026(2) dt.29-06-2026
4/4
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. 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
criminal antecedent, 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)
Gaurav Sinha/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.