Patna High Court
Prabhat Kumar @ Prabhat SahniversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail, subject to specified conditions.
Summary
Petitioner Prabhat Kumar (also known as Prabhat Sahni) was arrested in connection with a violent incident on 18 August 2025, where he was alleged to have fired a pistol, injuring an informant. He has been in custody since 23 November 2025 and faces charges under several sections of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner contended that the FIR was fabricated, that the injured person’s statement did not name him, and that the injury was minor. The prosecution argued that the petitioner fired at the victim and pointed to a pending antecedent case. The High Court, after considering the bail application, granted bail on a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties, imposing conditions of cooperation, appearance, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of criminal antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the seriousness of the offences alleged under the BNS and Arms Act.
- Whether the alleged fabrication of the FIR and lack of direct incriminating statement against the petitioner justify bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s pending criminal antecedent affects the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Arms Act
- fabricated FIR
- antecedent
- conditions of bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6931 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2025 Thana- KARPURIGRAM District- Samastipur
======================================================
Prabhat Kumar @ Prabhat Sahni son of Ashok Kumar Chaudhary @ Etwari
Sahni @ Atwari Sahni Resident of Village- Nirpur, Ward no. 6, Ps-
Karpurigram, Dist- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 23-03-2026 Heard Mr. Abhishek Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Anil Kumar Singh No. 1, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
23.11.2025 in connection with Karpurigram P.S. Case No. 89 of
2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2),
351(2), 352, 109(1), 3(5)of BNS and Section 27 of Arms Act.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 18-08-
2025 at about 22:00 hours in which he alleged that, on
18.08.2025 at about 07:30 pm, he along with his uncle namely
Gurfan were sitting with Sarpanch Saheb, in the meanwhile they
got information that his brother namely Md. Anzar and Md.
Tanweer were being assaulted at Railway Gumti No. 62, on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6931 of 2026(3) dt.23-03-2026
2/4
such information he along with his uncle reached on such place
where they saw that his villagers namely (1) Vinay Kumar
Mahto alias Vinni (2) Prabhat Sahni (3) Prakash Sahni, both are
sons of Atwari Sahni (4) Niraj Paswan (5) Bherokhra ka
Choubey and other unknown persons were abusing and
committing fight with his brothers, who after seeing the
informant tried to flew away but they chased by the informant
and his uncle and in due course one Prakash Sahni gave blow of
stick on his head which got injured on which he tried to flew
away in the meanwhile Prabhat Sahni (Petitioner) abused and
told to assault him on which one of them fired with pistol
causing bullet injury on the informant due to which he fell down
there, thereafter the nearby people took him to Sadar Hospital,
Samastipur for treatment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
allegation as alleged in the FIR is forged and fabricated and the
petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR.
It is further submitted that the petitioner is named in the FIR but
from bare perusal of the FIR as well as statement of the injured
person it appears that he has not stated anything about the
petitioner instead he has stated that someone has fired upon him.
It is further submitted that although he has received the injury
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6931 of 2026(3) dt.23-03-2026
3/4
but the injury report suggests that the injury sustained is simple
in nature and police after investigation has submitted charge-
sheet and the petitioner is in custody since 23.11.2025.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the
other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the
petitioner and submits that during investigation in paragraph-8
of the case diary that the petitioner has fired upon the victim.
Apart from the said, the petitioner has antecedent of one case
other than the present case but fairly submits that the same is
pending before the Court of competent law.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial
Magistrate-1st Class, Samastipur in connection with
Karpurigram P.S. Case No. 89 of 2025, subject to the following
conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be canceled by the Court below.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6931 of 2026(3) dt.23-03-2026
4/4
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-
U T
Checking your session…