Patna High Court
Purnwashi Yadav @ Purnwashi KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The Court held that bail should be granted to the petitioner, subject to a bond and sureties, as there is no substantial risk of evidence tampering and the petitioner has been in custody for an extended period.
Summary
The petitioner, Purnwashi Yadav, was arrested in connection with a shooting incident that injured Bablu Kumar, the cousin of an informant, over a money dispute related to sugarcane purchase. He was charged under multiple sections of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, and has been in custody since 14 May 2025. The petitioner sought bail, arguing that the informant’s testimony was unreliable, that he was already implicated in another case for which he was on bail, and that the investigation was complete, leaving no risk of evidence tampering. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the alleged indiscriminate firing and the victim’s identification of the petitioner as the shooter. The Court, noting the petitioner’s prolonged detention, the concluded investigation, and the lack of a risk to the investigation, granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 437(3) of the CrPC and Section 480(3) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting bail to the petitioner under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the Arms Act and the CrPC given the nature of the offences?
- Whether the completion of investigation and the petitioner’s prior bail in another case negate the risk of tampering with evidence?
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 480(3)
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 127(1), 190, 191(2), 303(2), 351(2), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 437(3)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- firearms offence
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Arms Act
- CrPC
- BNSS
- evidence tampering
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69101 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-17 Year-2024 Thana- DHAUDAD District- Rohtas
======================================================
Purnwashi Yadav @ Purnwashi Kumar, S/o Saryu Singh @ Saryu Yadav @
Sarju Singh, Resident of village-Dhankadha, P.S. - Dhaudarh, District- Rohtas
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Kant, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Md. Ataur Rahman, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 10-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The accused/petitioner seeks bail in connection
with Dhaudadh P.S. Case No.17 of 2024 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 127(1), 115(2),
303(2), 109, 351(2), 352, 117(2) and 190 of the Bhartiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘B.N.S.’) as well as Section
27 of the Arms Act.
3. The accused/petitioner is named in the FIR and
is in custody since 14.05.2025.
4. Allegation against the petitioner is to open fire
upon cousin brother of the informant namely, Bablu Kumar
causing bullet injury in his stomach, where alleged occurrence
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69101 of 2025(2) dt.10-02-2026
2/3
said to be arising out of money dispute related with purchase
of sugarcane.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that informant claims to be an eye
witness of the occurrence and according to him, this petitioner
alongwith two accused persons opened fire upon the
informant, out of which, one bullet hit to his cousin brother
namely, Bablu Kumar. It is pointed out that petitioner
implicated falsely in the background of monetary dispute
arising out of purchase of sugarcane.
6. While concluding argument, it is submitted that
petitioner found involved in one more criminal case, in which
he is on bail, and moreover, investigation of this case is
already concluded, for which charge-sheet has been
submitted and, as such, there is no chance of tampering with
the evidence.
7. Learned A.P.P. for the State, while opposing the
prayer of bail of the petitioner, submitted that the injured said
specifically that firing caused by this petitioner hit to his
stomach.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69101 of 2025(2) dt.10-02-2026
3/3
8. Let it be so, in the background of allegation of
indiscriminate firing by three accused persons, where
informant claimed to be an eye witness of the occurrence,
coupled with the fact that investigation of this case is already
concluded, where petitioner remains in custody since
14.05.2025, accordingly, petitioner, above-named, is
directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial
Magistrate-1st Class, Sasaram, Rohtas in connection with
Dhaudadh P.S. Case No. 17 of 2024, subject to the conditions
as laid down under Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (for short ‘CrPC’)/under Section 480(3) of the
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’).
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…