Priyanshu Rai @ Priyanshu KumarversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79114 of 2025
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-78 Year-2024 Thana- SAHAR District- Bhojpur
                 ======================================================
                 Priyanshu Rai @ Priyanshu Kumar S/O Deepak Ray @ Deepak Rai R/O
                 Village- Perhap, P.S.- Sahar, Dist.- Bhojpur, Bihar

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Ravi Shankar Roy, Adv
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Raj Kishor Singh, APP
                                                  Mr. Saumya, Adv
                                                  Mr. Suryajit Prakash
                                                  Mr. Avinash Raj
                                                  Mr. Shantam Shivam
                                                  Ms. Alankrita Singh
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   16-02-2026               1.    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

                   A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of

                   the informant.

                             2.    The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

                   with Sahar P.S. Case No. 78 of 2024, registered for the offences

                   punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 448, 201,

                   447 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25(1-B)a, 26, 27

                   and 35 of the Arms Act.

                             3.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges

                   that named accused persons including the petitioner entered his

                   Dalan where he was sitting with his son; and on account of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79114 of 2025(2) dt.16-02-2026
                                            2/4




          previous enmity, the accused being agnates fired, on which the

          informant and his son fled in their house, thereafter, petitioner,

          Deepak and Sonu fired indiscriminately causing injury to his

          son, Aditya, thereafter Diwakar, Vishnu, Suman, Parmatma,

          Nandu and Chhotak along with 3-4 unknown accused also fired

          at the informant and his son who was lying on the ground while

          the other accused were watching the occurrence from the

          window, it is next alleged that his son was declared dead by the

          doctor.

                    4.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

          petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case being

          agnate. It is next submitted that a property dispute in between

          the sides of the petitioner and the informant is brewing for a

          long time. It is further submitted that from perusal of the

          allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that this

          petitioner along with Deepak and Sonu are alleged to have fired

          causing death of son of the informant, namely, Aditya. It is next

          submitted that Deepak had approached this Court seeking

          anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc No. 20835 of 2025 and the

          same came to be allowed by an order dated 4.7.2025 passed by a

          learned Co-ordinate Bench, thus based on parity the learned

          counsel for the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79114 of 2025(2) dt.16-02-2026
                                            3/4




          petitioner.

                   5.     Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel

          appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for

          anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on

          behalf of the informant submits that what is not in dispute rather

          stands admitted is that son of the informant died in the

          occurrence and the informant also suffered fire-arm injury, but

          then the informant on account of treatment was saved. It is

          further submitted that no doubt allegation of killing the son of

          the informant is not specific against the petitioner rather the

          informant alleges that this petitioner along with Sonu and

          Deepak fired leading to the death of Aaditya. It is next

          submitted that no doubt Deepak has been granted the privilege

          of anticipatory bail by a learned Co-ordinate Bench, but then

          from perusal of the order dated 4.7.2025 in Cr. Misc No. 20835

          of 2025, it would manifest that the learned Co-ordinate Bench

          while granting the privilege of anticipatory bail to Deepak took

          into consideration the order passed by a learned Co-ordinate

          Bench in Kiran Devi and this Court in Kanti Kuer and Rita

          Devi, but then the case of Deepak was different from their cases.

          It is submitted that no specific allegation against Kiran, Kanti

          and Rita was alleged of causing fire-arm injury rather in the
              Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79114 of 2025(2) dt.16-02-2026
                                                          4/4




                        FIR, it is alleged that they were watching from a window, but

                        then specific allegation of firing leading to death of Aditya is

                        against the petitioner, Deepak and Sonu.

                                 6.     Considering the submission made by learned

                        counsel appearing on behalf of the informant, the Court is not

                        inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the

                        petitioner.

                                 7.     Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the

                        petitioner is rejected.



                                                  (Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-

U         T