Patna High Court
Praveen Kumar @ Praveen YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail, granting the bail application.
Summary
Petitioner Praveen Kumar was arrested in connection with a case registered under Sections 103(1), 3(5) and 61(2) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, alleging that he shot a man named Govind Kumar during a dispute. The prosecution’s version, based on the informant’s son’s mobile testimony, claimed the petitioner fired at the deceased after the latter was seized by a third person, resulting in the victim’s death. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, highlighting contradictions between the FIR, the eye‑witness statement, and the post‑mortem report, and pointing to an unexplained delay in filing the FIR despite an earlier inquest and autopsy. He also asserted that the shooting could not have been from close range as alleged, and that the dispute was essentially a land conflict. After hearing both sides, the Court found merit in the petitioner's arguments regarding the procedural irregularities and granted him bail on the condition of a Rs.10,000 bond with two sureties and compliance with trial attendance requirements.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the seriousness of the offences alleged under the B.N.S., 2023 and the Arms Act
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence justify bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 103(1), 3(5), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- delay in FIR
- contradictory evidence
- land dispute
- Arms Act
- B.N.S. 2023
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7936 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-119 Year-2025 Thana- KASIMBAZAR District- Munger
======================================================
Praveen Kumar @ Praveen Yadav Soin of Narayan Yadav Resident of
Mohalla- South Shastri Nagar, P.S.- Kasim Bazar, District- Munger
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vipin Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Vinod Shanker Modi, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
CAV ORDER
4 25-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with
Kasim Bazar P.S. Case No. 119 of 2025 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 103(1), 3(5) and 61(2) of B.N.S., 2023
and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution in short is that the
informant’s son namely, Gautam works in a private company in
Patna. On 01.05.2025, the informant has gone to meet his son. On
02.05.2025, when he was returning from Patna, his other son,
namely, Sonu informed him on mobile that Govind
Kumar(informant’s son) was being taken out of the house by the
petitioner and one Vikash and started assaulted him and when
Sonu, Chotu and Gautam went to rescue, the gun was pointed and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7936 of 2026(4) dt.25-03-2026
2/4
Vikash has caught Govind and this petitioner fired at him due to
which, Govind succumbed to the injury.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no
offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He has
further submitted that in this case, from perusal of the FIR, it is
clear that the informant is not the eye witness rather his son Sonu
informed him on mobile regarding the occurrence. It has further
been submitted that from perusal of the FIR, it will transpire that
the occurrence is of 02.05.2025 at 9:30 PM whereas the FIR was
lodged on 04.05.2025 at about 7 AM. It has further been
submitted that from perusal of the diary, it will transpire that the
inquest of the deceased was conducted on 03.05.2025 at 2:40 AM
and the postmortem of the deceased was also conducted on
03.05.2025 at 8:20 AM, despite that, the FIR has been lodged on
04.05.2025 and there is no explanation of the delay. It has further
been submitted that from perusal of the postmortem report, it will
also transpire that two bullet injuries were found on the person of
the deceased out of which, one is entry wound and second is exit
wound. It has been submitted that from perusal of the postmortem
report, it transpires that the doctor conducting the autopsy of the
deceased has not found any blackening or charring, it means, the
fire was not made from a blank range rather the fire was made
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7936 of 2026(4) dt.25-03-2026
3/4
from some distance, so the story that Vikash has caught hold the
deceased and this petitioner has fired, seems improbable. If the
fire is made from some distance, there is every possibility that the
person who has caught hold may also receive the gun shot. In
such cases, generally, the fire is made from blank range. From
perusal of the statement of Sonu who is according to the case of
the prosecution is the eye witness of this case, it is clear that he
has stated that this petitioner has pointed the gun on the chest of
the deceased and it is further stated by him that as they were
proceeding, this petitioner fired at the chest of the deceased. It is
further stated by him that this petitioner also fired at the Sonu and
other. Learned counsel has submitted that as per FIR, one Vikash
has caught hold the deceased and after that, this petitioner has
fired at the deceased whereas as per the statement of Sonu, he is
an eye witness, there is no role of Vikash rather it is stated that
the petitioner has fired. Learned counsel has further submitted
that from perusal of the entire material, it is clear that there was
land dispute between the deceased and the petitioner and there is
major contradiction in the case of prosecution in FIR and in the
statement of the eye witness. The delay which has occurred in
filing of the FIR speaks a lot, it has given time to the prosecution
for concocting a story for implicating the petitioner. Moreover,
the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 07.05.2025.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7936 of 2026(4) dt.25-03-2026
4/4
5. The application for bail is vehemently opposed by
learned APP for the State.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case as stated
above, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The
above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
CJM, Munger in connection with Kasim Bazar P.S. Case No. 119
of 2025 with a condition that the petitioner shall cooperate in
trial and shall remain physically present in the trial court on
each and every fixed date by the learned trial court till the
disposal of this case.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
shubham/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 11.03.2026
Uploading Date 25.03.2026
Transmission Date 25.03.2026
Checking your session…