Patna High Court
Amarjeet Kumar Gaurav @ Hariom Yadav @ Hariom RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner subject to specified conditions.
Summary
Amarjeet Kumar Gaurav was arrested on 11‑Nov‑2025 in connection with a case filed under several sections of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act, based on an FIR lodged by informant Samant Kumar Ray alleging that the petitioner abused him and fired at him. The petitioner contended that the FIR was fabricated, stemming from a prior personal dispute, and that he had not committed any offence. The State opposed bail, highlighting the specific allegations in the FIR and the petitioner’s antecedent of four other cases, though he was on bail in those matters. The court examined the allegations, the claim of fabrication, and the petitioner’s criminal record, and decided to grant bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, presence in court, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of antecedents. The bail order was issued with a warning that any breach would lead to cancellation.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the offences alleged under the BNS and Arms Act.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute a fabricated case warranting denial of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents affect the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- FIR
- fabricated allegation
- criminal antecedent
- Arms Act
- assault
- attempted murder
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7116 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-364 Year-2025 Thana- KALYANPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
Amarjeet Kumar Gaurav @ Hariom Yadav @ Hariom Ray Son of Ram Sushil
Yadav @ Ram Sushil Kumar Yadav Resident of Village- Manorathpur, P.S.-
Kalyanpur, District- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad, Advocate
: Ms. Rani Shashi Bharti, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 28-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
11.11.2025 in connection with Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 364 of
2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2),
109(1), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of BNS and Section 27 of Arms
Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that one
Samant Kumar Ray, the informant, gave his written application
to the SHO, Kalyanpur PS on 07.11.2025 with regard to an
incident dated 06.11.2025 disclosing therein that he is Mukhiya
of Gram Panchayat Raj Simria Bhindi. It is further alleged that
on 05.11.2025 at 12:00 the accused petitioner had openly abused
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7116 of 2026(4) dt.28-04-2026
2/4
the informant throughout the village Bhindi. Thereafter, the
informant came to know that the petitioner is making conspiracy
for killing him. Further it is alleged that on 06.11.2025 at 6:45
hours in evening while the informant was going to break Chimni
from Panchayat Bhavan in the meantime informant reached near
the bridge where the informant found the petitioner who along
with two persons were standing with motorcycle. It is further
alleged that all the accused persons started abusing the
informant and thereafter allegation is that accused petitioner
shot fired upon the informant but fortunately the bullet did not
touch and passed besides him. Thereafter informant after
making alarm fled away to save his life when nearby people
gathered to the place then after seeing them all accused persons
fled away with his motorcycle. It is further disclosed by the
informant that on earlier occasion also the accused petitioner
had intercepted his vehicle and he had abused his driver.
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 next submitted that although there is direct and specific
allegation against the petitioner in the FIR that petitioner has
fired upon the informant but fortunately/unfortunately the bullet
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7116 of 2026(4) dt.28-04-2026
3/4
did not touch the informant. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that no such occurrence has taken place and due to
previous dispute the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the
present case and police after investigation has submitted charge-
sheet on 04.01.2026 and petitioner is in custody since
11.11.2025.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the
petitioner and submits that petitioner is named in the FIR and
there is direct and specific allegation against him. Apart from
that, petitioner has antecedent of four cases other than the
present case but fairly submits that petitioner is on bail in the
pending matters.
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 Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur in connection with in
connection with Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 364 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7116 of 2026(4) dt.28-04-2026
4/4
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 cancelled by the Court below.
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…