Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Shambhu Ram @ Sham Prabhu RamversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

Anticipatory bail is denied for petitioner 1 but granted to petitioner 2 subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Summary

The petitioners, Shambhu Ram and his son Gulshan Kumar, were implicated in a FIR for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (sections 115(2), 109, 352, 351(2), 74, 3(5)) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, including alleged indiscriminate firing and causing a gunshot injury to the informant's husband. They applied for anticipatory bail, arguing that the charge against petitioner 2 was vague and no specific overt act was alleged against him, whereas petitioner 1 faced a specific allegation of causing firearm injury. The State opposed the bail applications. The Court held that because a specific allegation of firearm injury existed against petitioner 1, his anticipatory bail was refused. Conversely, the Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioner 2, subject to a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner 1 who is specifically alleged to have caused a firearm injury.
  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner 2 where the allegation is general and no specific overt act is alleged.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • firearm injury
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
  • Arms Act
  • Section 482
  • bail conditions
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.417 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-350 Year-2024 Thana- SIKANDRA District- Jamui
                 ======================================================
           1.     Shambhu Ram @ Sham Prabhu Ram S/O Late Bisundeo Ram @ Bisudev
                  Ram R/O Village- Pohe, P.S - Sikandra, District- Jamui.
           2.    Gulshan Kumar S/O Shambhu Ram @ Sham Prabhu Ram R/O Village-
                 Pohe, P.S - Sikandra, District- Jamui.

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Md. Matloob Rab, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   10-02-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the

                   State.

                                2. Petitioners apprehend arrest in a case registered for

                   the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 109, 352, 351(2),

                   74, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the

                   Arms Act.

                                3. As per prosecution case, all the F.I.R. named

                   accused persons, including made indiscriminate firing and

                   damaged household articles as well as Bolero vehicle. Petitioner

                   no. 1 is alleged to have caused gunshot injury to the husband of

                   informant.

                                4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.417 of 2026(2) dt.10-02-2026
                                                          2/2




                        submits that specific accusation of causing firearms injury is

                        against petitioner No. 1. So far petitioner no. 2 is concerned,

                        allegation against him is general and omnibus and there is no

                        allegation of any specific overt act against him.

                                     5. Learned counsel for the State opposed the bail

                        application.

                                     6. In view of the fact that petitioner No. 1 caused

                        firearms injury, prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner No.

                        1 is refused. However, considering the nature of accusation

                        against petitioner no. 2, the anticipatory bail with regard to

                        petitioner no. 2 is allowed and it is ordered that the above

                        named petitioner no. 2 in the event of his arrest/surrender before

                        the court below within a period of eight weeks from today, be

                        enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs. 10,000/- (ten

                        thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the

                        satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui in connection

                        with Sikandra P. S. Case No. 350 of 2024, subject to condition

                        as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.



                                              (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-

U         T


Continue reading with your account

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

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

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