Patna High Court
Pintu Kumar @ Pintu YadavversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
The court held that the anticipatory bail application must be dismissed as the evidence, including the post‑mortem report and witness statements, indicated sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused.
Summary
The petitioners, three brothers, sought anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged under Section 103 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act alleging they opened fire and killed a man. The informant, Sangeeta Devi, claimed the accused acted with common intention, while the petitioners argued they were not eyewitnesses and that some accused were elsewhere. The court examined the post‑mortem report showing six entry wounds and a supervision note indicating that two of the named accused were at a different location. Considering the forensic evidence and the statements of independent witnesses, the court found sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioners. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was rejected and the matter was referred to the senior superintendent of police for further inquiry.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners under the applicable provisions of the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita and the Arms Act.
- Whether the post‑mortem findings and witness statements establish a prima facie case against the petitioners.
- Whether the presence of some accused at a different location affects the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103, 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- murder
- arms act
- evidence
- post-mortem
- bail denial
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47973 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2025 Thana- Sarbahada District- Gaya
======================================================
1. Pintu Kumar @ Pintu Yadav S/O Late Chandradev Yadav R/O Vill.- Lachu
Bigha, P.S.- Sarbahda, Dist.- Gaya.
2. Mantu Kumar @ Mantu Yadav S/O Late Chandradev Yadav R/O Vill.-
Lachu Bigha, P.S.- Sarbahda, Dist.- Gaya.
3. Surendra Yadav S/O Late Ramdhani Yadav R/O Vill.- Gyan Bigha, P.S.-
Neemchak Bathan, Dist.- Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Surbhi Nirmal, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Bharat Bhushan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
3 21-01-2026 Heard Ms. Surbhi Nirmal, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending arrest in
connection with Surabhada P.S. Case No. 31 of 2025 instituted
under Section 103 and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita,
2023 and section 27 of the Arms Act lodged on 14.3.2025 by the
informant, Sangeeta Devi.
3. As per the prosecution story, the lady alleged that
while her husband was returning home after meeting his sister,
as he was coming on foot, named accused persons with common
intention opened fire which led to his immediate death. This
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47973 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
2/3
followed the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that all
the family members have been implicated in the present case,
the lady is not an eye-witness to the occurrence.
5. In this case, the coordinate bench had called for the
case diary and the post mortem report.
6. As per the post mortem report, six entry wounds are
there on the body of the deceased. The petitioners are named
and the entry wounds are also multiple, in that background, this
Court is not inclined to grant them relief. The anticipatory bail
application stands rejected.
7. Having rejected the petition, this Court had an
opportunity to go through the para-56 of the case diary, the
supervision note of the Dy.S.P. Neemchak Bathani by which he
has taken note of the statement of some of the independent
witnesses who have stated that Satyendra Yadav and Pintu
Yadav were present at the different location but have also been
named in the FIR.
8. In that background, the S.P., Gayaji is requested to
look into the matter and conduct an enquiry on the
implication/innocence of the accused persons named in the FIR
as admittedly, as per the supervision note, two of the named
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47973 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
3/3
accused persons have been found to be at a different place and
as such, the Dy. S.P. wanted more evidences against the said
accused.
9. With the aforesaid observation, the anticipatory bail
application stands disposed of.
10. Before parting, this Court would like to put on
record its word of appreciation for Ms. Surbhi Nirmal, learned
counsel for the petitioner for the proper assistance rendered in
the matter.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to the office of
Senior Superintendent of Police, Gayaji for his/her
perusal/needful.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
U T
Checking your session…