Patna High Court

Raj Kumar PatelversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 23 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL GRANTED
Bench: SONI SHRIVASTAVA

Holding

The court granted bail to the petitioner.

Summary

Petitioner Raj Kumar Patel was arrested for alleged firing on the leg of an informant's son, charged under IPC sections 307, 34, 120B and Arms Act section 27. He contended that the FIR named an unknown assailant and his only link was ownership of a mobile number used by others, for which he had already obtained bail in a related case. No eyewitness testified to seeing him at the scene. The State opposed bail. The High Court, noting the lack of direct evidence, the prior bail order, and the petitioner’s prolonged custody since August 2025, ordered his release on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted in a case involving offences under IPC sections 307, 34, 120B and Arms Act section 27.
Whether the mere ownership of a mobile number, without eyewitness evidence, suffices to justify continued detention.
Whether a prior bail order in a related matter influences the bail decision in the present case.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27
Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 307, 34

Subjects

bail
attempt to murder
criminal conspiracy
Arms Act
evidentiary link
mobile number
eyewitness absence
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73742 of 2025
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-113 Year-2023 Thana- SIKARPUR District- West Champaran
                 ======================================================
                 Raj Kumar Patel Son of Ramnath Patel Resident of Vill - Kohargarh, P.S.-
                 Majhauliya, Dist- West Champaran.                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
                 The State of Bihar.                             ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
                                       ORAL ORDER

4   23-02-2026                   Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                   2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for

                   the offences punishable under Section 307/34/120B of the Indian

                   Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

                                   3. The allegation against this petitioner is that he

                   fired on the leg of the son of the informant.

                                   4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

                   that the First Information Report has been lodged against the

                   unknown and the allegation is that the accused fired on the leg of

                   the son of the informant. It is further submitted that the name of

                   the petitioner has transpired in this case on the basis of the fact that

                   one day prior to the incident the injured/victim had filed another

                   F.I.R. against the holder of a particular mobile number making

                   demand of Rangdari. The said F.I.R. is Annexure-2 to the present

                   petition in connection to which the petitioner had been granted bail

                   by the Court of learned Sessions Judge (Annexure-3). Considering
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73742 of 2025(4) dt.23-02-2026
                                                        2/2




                      the fact that although the mobile number stands in the name of the

                      petitioner but it was used by two other persons, it is submitted that

                      the whole basis of the implication of the petitioner rests on he

                      being the holder of the particular mobile number which was

                      subject matter of the earlier case, wherein the observations are in

                      favour of the petitioner and he has been granted bail. Further, in

                      the entire course of investigation, there is no eye witness who has

                      even seen the petitioner in the viscinity of the place of occurrence.

                      The petitioner has been languishing in custody since 26.08.2025

                      and charge-sheet has been submitted.

                                      5.     Learned APP for the State opposed the bail

                      petition.

                                      6.    Taking     into    consideration   the   facts   and

                      circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the

                      petitioner has already been granted bail in the connected criminal

                      case by the learned Court below itself, the above named petitioner

                      is directed to be enlarged on bail 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 Court below where

                      the case is pending/successor Court in connection with Sikarpur

                      P.S. Case No.113 of 2023.


                                                (Soni Shrivastava, J)

Trivedi/-
U       T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…