Patna High Court
Divesh Kumar Sharma @ Divesh Singh @ Divesh Singh SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner subject to strict conditions and the possibility of cancellation if he attempts to delay the trial.
Summary
The petitioner, Divesh Kumar Sharma, a Railway Inspector, was named in an FIR for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, alleged to have participated in a shooting that resulted in the death of Renu Devi. The police, after investigation, submitted a final report exonerating the petitioner, but the magistrate nonetheless took cognizance of the case. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, arguing that he has a clean record, the police have cleared him, and he will cooperate with the trial. The State opposed the bail but could not refute the petitioner’s claim of exoneration. Justice Satyavrat Verma granted anticipatory bail on the condition that the petitioner surrender within six weeks, furnish bail bonds and sureties, and comply with the conditions of Sections 438(2) and 482(2) of the Cr.P.C., with the trial court retaining the power to cancel bail if the petitioner attempts to delay the proceedings. The order emphasizes that a person exonerated by an investigating agency should not be incarcerated merely on a cognizance order.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate exercise of judicial discretion in granting anticipatory bail when the investigating agency has exonerated the accused?
- Whether the magistrate’s cognizance of the case, despite a police exoneration report, justifies denial of anticipatory bail.
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
- police exoneration
- IPC offences
- Arms Act
- Criminal Procedure Code
- bail conditions
- judicial discretion
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.773 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-52 Year-2022 Thana- PARWALPUR District- Nalanda
======================================================
Divesh Kumar Sharma @ Divesh Singh @ Divesh Singh Sharma S/o- Late
Karu Singh @ Karu Sharma @ Krishna Chandar Singh 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
3 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 is a person with clean antecedent 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.773 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
2/4
were injured and 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 (petitioner), son of Late Karu Sharma
shot Renu, another Divesh, son of Kaushlendra Kumar shot
Pushpa and Nagendra 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, it is alleged
that petitioner shot Rene Devi leading to her death but then the
police, after threadbare investigation, came to a considered
conclusion, during the course of investigation, that petitioner is
innocent. It is next submitted that petitioner is an Inspector with
the Railways. It is also submitted that a government servant is
aware of the consequences which would entail in the event if he
gets involved in the occurrence of the nature as alleged in the
instant FIR. It is further submitted that the police submitted final
form exonerating the petitioner of the allegation as alleged in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.773 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
3/4
the FIR but then the learned Magistrate based on the same
police report took cognizance, hence, the petitioner apprehends
his arrest. It is next 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. 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 petitioner is an Inspector with the
Railways and the police, after investigation, submitted final
form exonerating the petitioner of the allegation as alleged in
the FIR.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, let
the petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.773 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
4/4
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…