Patna High Court
Prabhakar Kumar @ Laddu Singh @ Prabhakar Kumar Singh @ Prabhakar SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted as the petitioner was the alleged shooter and the offences were of grave nature.
Summary
The petitioner, Prabhakar Kumar, was charged under IPC sections 341, 323, 307, 120(B)/34 and Section 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly shooting an informant who later died. He had previously sought anticipatory bail, which was withdrawn, and regular bail, which was rejected. In the present hearing, the petitioner argued innocence and claimed the informant and co‑accused were involved in a land dispute. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the shooting and the victim's death. Considering the gravity of the offences and the petitioner’s role as the alleged assailant, the court declined to grant bail and dismissed the application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the seriousness of the offences, including attempted murder and shooting of the victim.
- Whether the petitioner poses a risk of tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses, or fleeing, justifying denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 307, 323, 34, 341
Subjects
- bail
- attempted murder
- criminal conspiracy
- Arms Act
- IPC
- high court
- gravity of offence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78767 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-108 Year-2023 Thana- NTPC KHAIRA District- Aurangabad
======================================================
Prabhakar Kumar @ Laddu Singh @ Prabhakar Kumar Singh @ Prabhakar
Singh Son of Harendra Singh Resident of Village - Dhawan(Dhawa), P.S.-
Bikramganj, District - Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bhavesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Braj Kishore Pd., APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of bail in connection with N.T.P.C. Khaira
P.S. Case No. 108 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 341, 323, 307, 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner has earlier
moved an anticipatory bail which was dismissed as withdrawn
vide order dated 27.09.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 50880 of
2024.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has
been rejected vide order dated 12.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 22265 of 2025, which reads as under:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78767 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
“Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in
connection with N.T.P.C. Khaira P.S. Case No.
108 of 2023 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307,
120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution story, on
05.12.2023 at 5:00 P.M., the petitioner and the
co-accused Lankesh Kumar, came at the house
of the informant and the petitioner fired at the
informant which hit his abdomen and he fell
down. It is alleged that the said occurrence
took place because the brother of the informant
Harendra Singh got mutated the share of the
land of the informant in favour of his two sons,
namely, Prabhakar Singh and Lankesh Singh.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is innocent and has
falsely been implicated in this case. It is
submitted that the informant and the accused
persons are own gotiyas and the petitioner is in
custody since 3.1.2025.
5. Learned APP for the State has
opposed the prayer for grant of bail of the
petitioner.
6. Having regard to the specific
allegation that this petitioner shot at the victim
on his abdomen and the injured who is himself
the informant in this case, died later on, this
Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to
the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this application is
dismissed.”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
charges have been framed in the trial.
5. Considering the gravity of the offence and also the
fact that the petitioner is the assailant o the deceased, I am not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78767 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
inclined to review my earlier order.
6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T
Checking your session…