Patna High Court
Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranju KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The Court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Ranjeet Kumar, applied for anticipatory bail after an FIR was lodged alleging his involvement in a violent incident where he allegedly fired at an informant, causing a head injury. The petitioner argued that the informant’s statement was made shortly after the incident, indicating sound mental and physical condition, and that the injury was simple and possibly not a firearm wound. He also highlighted a land dispute and claimed he was on duty as a Station Master, which the police had not verified. The State contended that the injury was unmistakably a firearm wound, the petitioner had two prior criminal convictions, and that an alibi is not sufficient for anticipatory bail. The Court, noting the seriousness of the alleged firearm injury and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents, refused the anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted in a case involving alleged firearm injury and serious offences under the BNS and Arms Act.
- Whether the petitioner’s alibi and the informant’s mental state at the time of statement affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether prior criminal antecedents of the petitioner preclude the relief of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- firearm injury
- criminal antecedents
- alibi
- Bihar Penal Code
- Arms Act
- land dispute
- police verification
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.48605 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-77 Year-2025 Thana- RAHUI District- Nalanda
======================================================
Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranju Kumar S/o Ashok Prasad Resident of Village-
Toofanganj, PS- Rahui (Bhaganbigha), District- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar Mahuar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, APP
For the Informant/s : Mr. Navjot Yeshu, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
6 21-01-2026 Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Mahuar, learned Advocate
for the petitioner and Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned
APP for the State. The informant is represented through Mr.
Navjot Yeshu, learned Advocate.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Rahui (Bhaganbigha) P.S. Case No.77 of 2025 registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3),
126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 352 of the BNS and Section 27 of
the Arms Act.
3. Allegedly, in the night of the fateful day, while the
informant was going to Bihar Sharif, in the meanwhile, seven
named accused persons, including the petitioner surrounded him
and started abusing him. It is specifically alleged that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48605 of 2025(6) dt.21-01-2026
2/3
petitioner fired upon him, due to which he sustained injury on
his head.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner, taking this
Court through the FIR, has contended that the alleged
occurrence took place on 05.02.2025 at 10:10 P.M. and the
fardbeyan of the informant was recorded on the same day at
10:43 P.M., which prima facie shows that the informant was in a
good mental and physical condition to make his fardbeyan. The
entire prosecution case falls to the ground for the simple reason
that the nature of injury is not only said to be simple, but the
doctor opined that it may be a firearm injury. During the course
of investigation, it has also come that there was land dispute
between the parties and, as such, the false implication of the
petitioner cannot be ruled out. It has also been submitted that the
petitioner has been working as Station Master and posted at
Gauchhari Station and the police has not verified this fact as to
whether on the date of occurrence he was on duty or not.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
and the learned Advocate for the informant opposed the bail
application and submitted that besides the specific accusation of
causing firearm injury over the head of the informant, which is a
vital part, the injury report clearly suggests that a blackish
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.48605 of 2025(6) dt.21-01-2026
3/3
brown lacerated wound over right-side forehead of size approx,
2”x½” x skin deep with totting present around wound and
undoubtedly it is a firearm injury. Moreover the petitioner also
bears two criminal antecedents, which fortified his criminal
activity. The plea of alibi is good for the trial and not for the
anticipatory bail, which is an extraordinary relief, is the
contention of the learned Advocate for the informant.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by
the learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note
of the specific accusation of causing firearm injury over the
head, though the injury is simple, but it cannot be ruled out that
the informant was fortunate enough, besides the two criminal
antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not acceded to the
prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, his
prayer is rejected.
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
U T
Checking your session…