Patna High Court
Umesh Prasad SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PURNENDU SINGH
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail as the allegations do not sufficiently link him to the shooting and he is likely to be acquitted.
Summary
Umesh Prasad Singh, a 70‑year‑old man, was charged under Sections 109, 352 and 3(5) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 27 and 30 of the Arms Act for allegedly firing on the informant’s family along with his son Ravin Singh. The petitioner claimed he only engaged in a heated verbal dispute and that his son, who possessed a licensed pistol, acted independently, asserting no direct involvement in the shooting. The State and the informant opposed bail, arguing that Singh was the mastermind and order‑giver, and highlighted the seriousness of the injuries inflicted. The Court applied the bail criteria from Manno Lal Jaiswal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, noting the need to balance seriousness, evidence, flight risk, and witness tampering. Finding the prosecution’s evidence insufficient to link Singh directly to the firing and concluding a high likelihood of acquittal, the Court granted pre‑arrest bail subject to a bond and sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail despite the gravity of the offences alleged under the IPC and Arms Act.
- Whether the evidence establishes the petitioner as an order‑giver sufficient to deny bail.
- Whether there is a likelihood of the petitioner fleeing, tampering with evidence, or influencing witnesses.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27, 30
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 109, 3(5), 352
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- serious offences
- arms act
- abetment
- order‑giver
- evidentiary insufficiency
- age
- family dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7115 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-183 Year-2025 Thana- SINDHIYA District- Samastipur
======================================================
Umesh Prasad Singh, aged about 70 years, Gender-Male, S/o Late Chaturbhuj
Prasad Singh @ Chaturbhuj Singh, Resident of Village- Lagma, P.S.-
Singhiya, District- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kr. Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate
Mr. Roop Kishan, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Gunjesh Gautam, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Humayou Ahmad Khan, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 12-05-2026 Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel
assisted by Mr. Vijay Anand, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Gunjesh Gautam, learned counsel
for the informant and Mr. Humayou Ahmad Khan, learned APP
for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection
with Singhiya P.S. Case No. 183 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 109, 352, 3(5) of the BNS
and Sections 27 and 30 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the petitioner
along with his son (co-accused Ravin Singh), with a common
intention to kill, had fired indiscriminately upon the informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7115 of 2026(4) dt.12-05-2026
2/6
side, in which, father of the informant namely, Suresh Singh,
uncle of the informant namely, Mahesh Prasad Singh and
mother of the informant namely, Ranjana Devi had sustained
multiple fire-arm injuries on their different parts of body.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely
been implicated in the present case. Petitioner is aged about 70
years and no overt act has been alleged against him. Due to a
pre-existing family dispute, there was a heated altercation
between the petitioner and the informant and in the heat of
passion, both parties indulged into hot talk, which led to the
commission of the present incidence as alleged in the FIR. He
further submitted that the co-accused, who son of the petitioner,
namely, Ravin Singh was carrying licensee pistol and allegation
against the petitioner is that he had also used fire-arm but no
description of that fire-arm has been alleged in the FIR. Direct
allegation of indiscriminate firing is upon co-accused Ravin
Singh, who is in custody and so far as the petitioner is
concerned, allegation against him is that he had ordered the co-
accused Ravin Singh to open fire upon mother of the informant,
namely, Ranjana Devi, who had sustained one fire-arm injury in
her left thigh and, at the best, it can be said that the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7115 of 2026(4) dt.12-05-2026
3/6
was the order giver. Petitioner has clean antecedent. On these
grounds, petitioner seeks to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Per contra, Mr. Gunjesh Gautam, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant has vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submitted that
the petitioner is the one, who has not only obstructed the free
movement of the family members of the informant due to
collision of mud in front of the house of their house, at the same
time, he is the main conspirator, as well as, the order giver, who
had directed his son to fire upon the informant and his family
members, in which, three persons had sustained bullet injuries
on different part of their bodies. The petitioner is own uncle of
the informant, as such, the intention of mens rea is well
established in commission of alleged offence. Learned counsel
further submitted that petitioner has not made out a case that in
course of trial, he will be acquitted.
6. Learned APP for the State has also vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
7. The Apex Court in the case of Manno Lal Jaiswal
Vs the State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr (Criminal Appeal No. 97
of 2022) has observed that while granting bail, the relevant
considerations are (i) nature of seriousness of the offence; (ii)
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7115 of 2026(4) dt.12-05-2026
4/6
character of the evidence and circumstances which are peculiar
to the accused; and (iii) likelihood of the accused fleeing from
justice; (iv) the impact that his release may make on the
prosecution witnesses, its impact on the society; and (v)
likelihood of his tampering.
8. It is well settled that gravity alone cannot be a
decisive ground to deny bail, rather competing factors are
required to be balanced by the Court while exercising its
jurisdiction. “A person is believed to be innocent until found
guilty”.
9. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf
of the parties, as well as, having considered the facts and
circumstances of the case and the allegation made against the
petitioner in the FIR, if it is considered in the totality of the
material, which has surfaced in course of investigation, I find
that the petitioner, at the best, can be said to be the order giver
and his son by means of his licensee pistol, had fired upon the
father, uncle, who are own brother of the petitioner and mother
of the informant (wife of Suresh Prasad), sister-in-law of the
petitioner, in which, injury of Mahesh Prasad Singh was
dangerous to life and he was operated and saved after
undergoing treatment for six months in hospital. The common
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7115 of 2026(4) dt.12-05-2026
5/6
intention of the petitioner along with his son (co-accused Ravin
Singh) has to be determined whether, he is the one, who had
instigated his son Ravin Singh, who is in custody. I find that the
allegation against the petitioner don't find support from the
material, which has been collected in course of investigation as
it appears that the petitioner has admitted that there was a heated
talk between the parties and as a result of heat of the moment,
his son Ravin Singh had started indiscriminate firing upon the
family members of the informant and direct allegation against
him that he had injured Mahesh Prasad Singh and Suresh Singh,
who had sustained grievous injuries and it can not be established
that the petitioner had also used fire-arm. I find that there is
every likelihood that the petitioner will be acquitted in course of
trial. I am of the opinion that petitioner has, prima facie, made
out a case to be released on pre-arrest bail.
10. The petitioner, above named, is directed to be
released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of his/her arrest or
surrender before the learned District Court within a period of
four weeks from today, 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 District Court where the
case is pending, in connection with Singhiya P.S. Case No. 183
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7115 of 2026(4) dt.12-05-2026
6/6
of 2025, subject to the condition as laid down under Section
482(2) of the BNSS.
11. The learned District Court is directed to verify
the criminal antecedent of the petitioner as stated in
paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. If any other case is
pending against the petitioner as what has been stated in
paragraph no. 3, this order will lose its force automatically.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Niraj/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.