Patna High Court
Om Prakash Kumar @ Chhotu Kumar @ chhotu mauarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner subject to conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S.
Summary
The petitioner, Om Prakash Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under several sections of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He asserted a clean record and claimed he was falsely implicated due to a property dispute with the informant, arguing that the injury report did not corroborate the FIR's claim of a firearm injury. The State contended that the injury report indicated pellet injury but noted the lack of forensic signs of a gunshot, and maintained that the investigation was ongoing. The court, after hearing both sides, granted anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner surrender within six weeks, furnish bail bonds and sureties, and comply with Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., with a provision for cancellation if he fails to cooperate. The order emphasized that the bail could be revoked if the investigating officer shows non‑cooperation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite serious charges under the B.N.S. and Arms Act.
- Whether the petitioner is likely to abscond or obstruct the investigation.
- Whether the injury report sufficiently undermines the prosecution's claim of a firearm injury.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- injury report
- Arms Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
- property dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71815 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-138 Year-2025 Thana- TARARI District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Om Prakash Kumar @ Chhotu Kumar @ chhotu mauar Son of Laxman
Mauar @ Lachhaman mauar R/o village - Gaharha, P.S.- Tarari, District -
Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shivesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Damodar Prasad Tiwary, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 16-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 352, 109 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the
Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that petitioner along with Mithlesh came and assaulted
him and on order of Mithlesh, petitioner fired and the bullet hits
the door and rebounded causing pellet injury in his eyes.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71815 of 2025(3) dt.16-04-2026
2/3
informant being agnate of the informant. It is next submitted
that the petitioner and informant are having dispute relating to
property. It is further submitted that no doubt it is alleged in the
FIR that petitioner fired but then the shot hit the door and the
pellet rebounded causing injury in the eyes of the informant but
then the injury report does not corroborate the allegation as
alleged in the FIR.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State after perusing the
injury report submitted that the doctor has recorded that
informant disclosed that the injury was caused by pellets but
then from perusal of the injury its manifest that there was no
blackening stroke charring, as such, it is fairly submitted that
doctor has not confirmed the allegation of injury caused by fire
arm but then it is submitted that investigation is going on, on
which, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if
privilege of anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner, the
petitioner will not abscond, rather will cooperate in the
investigation to prove his innocence.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, let the petitioner,
above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a
period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71815 of 2025(3) dt.16-04-2026
3/3
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Trial Court where the case is pending/Successor
Court in connection with Tarari P.S. Case No. 138 of 2025,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. However, it is made clear that if the Investigating
Officer of the case files an application before the learned Trial
Court bringing to its notice that petitioner despite giving
assurance to this Court is not cooperating in the investigation in
that event the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the
anticipatory bail bond of the petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
khushbu/-
U T
Checking your session…