Patna High Court
Nanha Sharma @ Nanhe Sharma @ Ashwini KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner, subject to stringent conditions, as the co‑accused had already received similar relief and the petitioner has no prior criminal record.
Summary
The petitioner, Nanha Sharma, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a FIR alleging theft of Rs. 66,000 and involvement in a violent incident where co‑accused fired a pistol at an informant. The prosecution alleged that Sharma, along with Manohar and Sanjeev Chaudhary, entered the informant's shop, demanded liquor, and after a confrontation, a pistol was used to fire a shot near the informant's head, during which Sharma allegedly stole the money. Sharma's counsel argued that the only allegation against him was the theft, he is a student with a clean record, and that the other co‑accused had already been granted anticipatory bail by the coordinate bench. The State opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, contending the seriousness of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act. The Court, noting the grant of anticipatory bail to the co‑accused and Sharma's lack of prior criminal history, inclined to grant anticipatory bail subject to strict conditions. Accordingly, the Court ordered that Sharma be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties and compliance with conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The order also stipulated conditions regarding appearance before the trial court, non‑interference with witnesses, and abstention from further offences.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the CrPC and Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
- Whether the nature of the alleged offences and the petitioner’s personal circumstances justify the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)(a), 26, 27, 35
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- theft
- assault
- arms possession
- bail conditions
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42481 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-16 Year-2026 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka
======================================================
Nanha Sharma @ Nanhe Sharma @ Ashwini Kumar Son of Shankar Sharma
Resident of Village- Kaushalpur, P.S.- Amarpur, District- Banka.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Deepak Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Bharat Bhushanm, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 01-07-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Amarpur P.S. Case No. 16 of 2026 F.I.R dated
05.01.2026 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 126 (2), 115 (2), 109 (1), 303 (2), 352, 351 (2), 3 (5) of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 25 (1-b) (a), 26, 27
and 35 of Arms Act.
3. According to prosecution case, on 05.01.2026 at
around 07:00 P.M. the accused persons, namely Manohar
Chaudhary, Sanjeev Chaudhary and Nanha Sharma arrived at
the informant’s shop and one of the accused took out a liquor
bottle and said, let us sit and drink inside your shop. Upon
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42481 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
2/4
refusal and confrontation by the informant the accused started
abusing and one of the co-accused rushed to his home and
brought pistol and handed it to Manohar Chaudhary and he then
fired a gun shot on the informant, which passed near his head.
During the alleged incident Nanha Sharma stole Rs. 66,000/-
from the informant’s shop.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to
the allegations made in the F.I.R. submits that merely
allegations of having taken away cash to the tune of Rs.
66,000/- from the informant’s shop is leveled against this
petitioner. It has next been submitted that allegations of overt
attack being made against Mr. Manohar Chaudhary and Mr.
Sanjeev Chaudhary have already been extended the privilege of
anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench in CWJC No. 21228
of 2026 and CWJC No. 15800 of 2026, respectively. It is
submitted that the petitioner is a student and has unnecessarily
been dragged in this case. The petitioner has got clean
antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail in respect of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and that the two
other co-accused have already been granted privilege of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42481 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
3/4
anticipatory bail by the co-ordinate Bench. Accordingly, this
Court is inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of
his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, 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 C.J.M, Banka, Amarpur in connection
with the aforesaid P.S. Case, subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure /
Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and
with other following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the family
member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who
shall provide official document/personal affidavit
to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each
and every date before the Trial Court and failure to
do so for two consecutive dates without plausible
reason will entail cancellation of his/her/their bail
bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try
to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or
tamper with the evidences, failing which the State
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42481 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
4/4
shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of
the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from
committing any criminal offence again, failing
which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
surya/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.