Patna High Court
Shivam Kumar @ Shibam KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Anticipatory bail is denied to the petitioner.
Summary
Shivam Kumar sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a murder case (Section 103(1), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act). He asserted innocence, noting he was not named in the FIR and his name arose only from the confession of co‑accused Sulendra Mahto, while he was already in judicial custody for a separate case. The State argued that he was a conspirator and opposed bail. The court examined the gravity of the allegations, the lack of any incriminating material against the petitioner, and his custodial status, and concluded that anticipatory bail was not warranted. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the allegations of murder and arms offences.
- Whether the petitioner can be considered a conspirator despite lack of direct evidence.
- Whether the petitioner’s custodial status in another case affects the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- murder
- conspiracy
- Arms Act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44460 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-434 Year-2024 Thana- BIHARIGANJ District- Madhepura
======================================================
Shivam Kumar @ Shibam Kumar S/o- Avinandan Mahto Village-Gangaura
Ward No- 01 P.S- Bihariganj District-Madhepura
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Pawan Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ram Anurag Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
4 05-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State. Perused the case diary.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in Bihariganj
P.S. case No. 434 of 2024 registered under Section 103(1), 3(5)
of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms
Act.
3. The prosecution allegation, in short, is that the
father of the informant was shot dead by the accused persons.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
present case. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent.
The petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. The name of the
petitioner has transpired on the basis of confessional of co-
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.44460 of 2025(4) dt.05-02-2026
2/2
accused Sulendra Mahto. On the alleged date of occurrence, the
petitioner was in judicial custody in connection with Gwalpara
P.s. Non FIR No. 109 of 2024. General and omnibus allegation
has been made against the petitioner. During investigation,
nothing has come against the petitioner.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. Learned
APP submits that in the case diary, it has come that petitioner’s
role was conspirator of the offence. Hence, he does not deserve
the privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
as also the nature and gravity of allegation, this Court is not
inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. The prayer is rejected.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Pankaj/-
U T
Checking your session…