Patna High Court
Nagendra Kumar @ Nagendra Sharma @ Gonu SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to bail bonds, sureties and conditions under the Cr.P.C.
Summary
Nagendra Kumar, a government teacher, was named in an FIR for offences under IPC sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120(B) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, relating to a shooting incident during a Holi dispute. He contended that the informant falsely implicated him and that the police investigation later exonerated him. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, arguing he would not abscond and would cooperate with the trial. The State opposed the bail but could not refute the claim of the petitioner’s innocence. Justice Satyavrat Verma granted anticipatory bail on the condition of furnishing bail bonds and sureties, with a warning that the trial court may cancel bail if the petitioner attempts to delay the proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the FIR alleging serious offences
- Whether the police’s exoneration of the petitioner warrants bail
- Whether conditions under Sections 438(2) and 482(2) of the Cr.P.C. are applicable
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438(2), 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 147, 148, 149, 302
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- IPC offences
- Arms Act
- police exoneration
- criminal procedure
- bail conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.737 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-52 Year-2022 Thana- PARWALPUR District- Nalanda
======================================================
Nagendra Kumar @ Nagendra Sharma @ Gonu Singh S/o- Panchanand Singh
@ Panchanand Sharma R/v- Alawan PS - Parwalpur Dist- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Sri Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Sri Lovekush Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 27-04-2026 1. Heard Sri Rama Kant Sharma, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148,
149, 302 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section
27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant
alleges that on 19.03.2022, at 12:30 p.m., 18 named accused
persons including the petitioner came and started abusing for the
reason that day before the accused persons had assaulted them
on account of which named persons in the FIR were injured and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.737 of 2026(2) dt.27-04-2026
2/4
had threatend that they will not allow the informant’s side to
celeberate holi. It is further alleged that accused persons started
firing on account of which the wife of the informant, namely,
Renu Devi received firearm injury on her chest and back leading
to her death while Pushpa Devi received firearm injury on her
waist and Rajendra was shot in the stomach. Further, Divesh,
son of Late Karu Sharma shot Renu, another Divesh, son of
Kaushlendra Kumar shot Pushpa and Nagendra (petitioner) shot
Rajendra and the injured were taken to the hospital.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is further submitted that no doubt, in the FIR,
the informant alleges that petitioner shot Rajendra but then
during the course of investigation, it transpired that petitioner
was not involved in the occurrence. It is next submitted that
petitioner is a government teacher and since he is an earning
member of the family, hence, he came to be implicated only
with a view to coerce the family into submission. It is fairly
submitted that Rajendra, during the course of investigation, did
take the name of the petitioner as one who fired but then the
police, after threadbare investigation, came to a considered
conclusion that petitioner is innocent and, thus, submitted final
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.737 of 2026(2) dt.27-04-2026
3/4
form exonerating the petitioner of the allegation. It is also
submitted that when one investigating agency, after threadbare
investigation, came to a considered conclusion that petitioner is
innocent, whether it would be prudent for the Court to send the
petitioner to jail based on an order of cognizance which came to
be taken based on the same police report which exonerated the
petitioner of the allegation alleged in the FIR during the course
of investigation. It is further submitted that petitioner is a
government teacher and is well aware of the consequences
which would entail in the event if he is involved in such an
occurrence. It is next submitted that if the privilege of
anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner will
not abscond rather will cooperate in the trial to prove his
innocence. It is also submitted that petitioner will not delay the
trial in any manner.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant opposed the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner but then are not in a position to
rebut the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner that the police, after threadbare
investigation, came to be a considered that petitioner was not
involved in the occurrence and, thus, submitted final form.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.737 of 2026(2) dt.27-04-2026
4/4
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, 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 on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty-five 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
Parwalpur P.S. Case No. 52 of 2022, 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 learned Trial
Court comes to a conclusion that petitioner, after his release on
anticipatory bail, is trying to delay the framing of charge or after
framing of charge is trying to delay the trial of the case in any
manner, the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the
bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…