Patna High Court
Sahendra PandeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail.
Summary
Sahendra Pandey was arrested in connection with an assault on an informant, alleged to involve both a firearm and a sharp weapon, under several sections of the B.N.S., 2023 and the Arms Act. The petitioner claimed innocence, arguing that the FIR was ante‑dated, that there were inconsistencies between the FIR and the medical injury report, and that the delay in filing the FIR was unexplained. He also pointed out that the medical report indicated a superficial knife injury and that the gunshot wound could not have been caused by a sharp‑edged weapon. The informant’s counsel opposed bail, asserting that the petitioner was the main assailant, while the court noted that a co‑accused had previously been granted bail in a similar case. Considering the doubtful evidence, the delay in FIR registration, and the precedent of bail to the co‑accused, the court decided to enlarge the petitioner on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the FIR and medical evidence.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and alleged inconsistencies in the injury report justify granting bail.
- Whether the precedent of bail granted to a co‑accused influences the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- bail
- FIR delay
- medical evidence
- assault
- Arms Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80662 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2025 Thana- NARAINPUR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Sahendra Pandey S/O Late Ram Awadesh Pandey R/O Vill.- Chasi, P.S-
Narayanpur,Dist.- Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Vinod Kumar Pandey S/O Late Ram Pujan Pandey R/O Vill.- Chasi, P.S-
Narayanpur, Dist.- Bhojpur
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Akanksha Malviya, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Amarendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Murli Dhar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 16-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the Informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with Narayanpur P.S. Case No. 62 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109,
352, 351(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of the
Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution is that co-accused
persons have assaulted the informant with gunshot and this
petitioner has assaulted with sharp edge kaata (angular blade
tool) and knife on the head of the victim indiscriminately. After
that the informant raised an alarm, and villagers arrived and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80662 of 2025(3) dt.16-01-2026
2/4
rescued the informant.
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 also submits that from perusal of the FIR, it is clear
that the occurrence took place on 15.06.2025 at 07:00 PM. It has
also been submitted that from perusal of the injury report, it
transpires that the date and time of examination are the same. It
has been argued that it is not possible for the victim to be
examined by the doctor at the very time of the occurrence itself.
It is further submitted that the FIR was filed on 15.06.2025 at
08:40 AM and the same was brought before the Judicial
Magistrate on 20.06.2025. The delay in forwarding the FIR has
not been explained. He also submits that all these goes to show
that the FIR is ante-dated, and from perusal of the injury report,
it is also clear that the first injury is a single penetrative wound
of size 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm with charring around the edges over the
interior chest wall, penetrating a gunshot wound, most likely an
entry wound. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits
that in gunshot injuries, penetrative wounds are not possible.
The informant has received three more injuries, and it is alleged
that these injuries were caused by sharp-edged weapons, but the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80662 of 2025(3) dt.16-01-2026
3/4
doctor has found that the injuries were caused by hard and blunt
object. There is no repetition of the gunshot blow, and the
description of the gunshot injury, which starts with the word
‘single penetrative wound,’ itself creates doubt. Learned counsel
for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner is
languishing in judicial custody since 20.06.2025. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has lastly submitted that similarly
situated co-accused Sudhir Pandey @ Pintu Pandey has been
granted bail by this Court vide Cr. Misc. No. 69621 of 2025.
The case of this petitioner stands on better footing.
5. From perusal of the order of the learned trial court
it is clear that the trial court has recorded that on the person of
the informant, injury of knife found which has been described
that the Doctor has opined “on scalp skin deep injury of the size
of 7cm x 2cm was found”. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that he
has assaulted with sharp cutting weapon, whereas firearm injury
has also been found on the person of the informant which is not
attributed to this petitioner. Injury, if any, caused by this
petitioner is superficial as the same is skin deep.
6. Learned counsel for the Informant is present and he
has vehemently opposed the bail application of the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.80662 of 2025(3) dt.16-01-2026
4/4
and has submitted that the petitioner is the main assailant.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named
petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned court of
Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Ara in connection with Narayanpur
P.S. Case No. 62 of 2025.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-
U T
Checking your session…