Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Chhotu Sharma @ Mithlesh Kumar SharmaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

Bail was not granted to the petitioner at this stage.

Summary

The petitioner, Chhotu Sharma, was charged under Sections 109, 303(2), 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly firing at the informant's son, causing a thigh injury. He applied for bail, asserting no prior criminal record, false implication, a two‑month delay in filing the FIR, and that the victim sustained only a single injury indicating no intent to kill. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the direct allegation of firing and the seriousness of the offences. The Court, after considering the allegations and the seriousness of the charges, declined to grant bail at this stage and directed the trial court to expedite the trial. The petitioner was permitted to renew the bail application if the trial is not concluded within three months of the order.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the accused in light of the alleged firing and injuries caused.
  • Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and lack of intent to kill affect the bail eligibility.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • criminal procedure
  • firearms
  • assault
  • intent to kill
  • trial expeditious
  • false implication

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6515 of 2026
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-334 Year-2025 Thana- NARPATGANJ District- Araria
                 ======================================================
                 Chhotu Sharma @ Mithlesh Kumar Sharma Son of Late Dhanraj Sharma R/o
                 Village - Pathraha, Ward No. 06, P.S. - Narpatganj, District - Araria.

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Choubey Jawahar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   04-02-2026             Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP

                   for the State.

                           2.       The petitioner seeks bail in connection with

                   Narpatganj P.S. Case No. 334 of 2025 instituted for the offence

                   under Sections 109, 303(2), 324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

                   Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

                           3.       The prosecution case, in short, is that on

                   10.07.2025, the informant’s son Shailendra Kumar was lured by

                   his friends on the pretext of repairing his damaged mobile and

                   taken towards Chanda School, where accused Chhotu Sharma

                   (petitioner) allegedly fired at him causing injury on his thigh.

                           4.       It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner

                   that the petitioner is in custody since 07.09.2025. Petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6515 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
                                            2/3




          bears no criminal antecedent, as per disclosure made in

          paragraph No. 3 of the bail application.

                  5.      It has been further submitted by the petitioner’s

          counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present

          case. There is delay of two months in lodging the FIR.

          Informant is not the eye witness. From perusal of the injury

          report, two injuries have been found on the right leg of the son

          of the informant. Nothing has been recovered from the

          conscious possession of the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that

          victim has sustained only one injury, hence, there was no

          intention to kill.

                  6.      Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently

          opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.

                  7.      Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

          of the case, there being direct allegation of firing against the

          petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the

          petitioner, at this stage. Prayer for bail is hereby rejected.

                  8.      The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as

          expeditiously as possible without any undue delay and

          unnecessary adjournments.

                  9.      However, petitioner will be at liberty to renew his

          prayer for bail, if the trial is not concluded within a period of
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6515 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
                                                       3/3




                     three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of

                     this order.



                                                                  (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Raj Kishore/-

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.