Patna High Court
Jaiprakash Sharma @ PintuversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED (DISPOSAL)
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court denied bail to Jaiprakash Sharma but granted bail to Ravindra Sharma subject to conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, Jaiprakash Sharma and Ravindra Sharma, were accused of arson under Sections 326, 103(1) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 after an informant claimed his father was set on fire and the petitioners fled the scene. The petitioners applied for bail, arguing that the FIR merely noted their presence and that the case stemmed from a land dispute, with no direct evidence of their involvement. The State and the informant opposed bail, highlighting that the FIR specifically named Jaiprakash Sharma, that forensic reports detected kerosene and dichlorophenyl on the exhibits, and that the informant identified Jaiprakash as the assailant. The court denied bail to Jaiprakash Sharma, finding the naming in the FIR and forensic evidence sufficient to refuse privilege, but granted bail to Ravindra Sharma, a senior citizen not specifically implicated, subject to a Rs.10,000 bond and sureties. The application was therefore partly allowed, with directions for an expeditious trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused named in the FIR and linked to forensic evidence in an arson case under the B.N.S., 2023.
- Whether the senior citizen status and lack of specific naming of the second accused justify bail.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 103(1), 326, 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- arson
- FIR
- forensic science laboratory report
- senior citizen
- criminal procedure
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.82623 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-9 Year-2025 Thana- TELHARA District- Nalanda
======================================================
1. Jaiprakash Sharma @ Pintu Son of Sri Rajbali Sharma @ Rajbali Singh
Resident of Village - Tarupur, Police Station - Telhara, District - Nalanda.
2. Ravindra Sharma Son of Sri Rajbali Sharma @ Rajbali Singh Resident of
Village - Tarupur, Police Station - Telhara, District - Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate
: Mr. Adarsh P., Advocate
: Mr. Mayank Raj, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Dr. Indiwar Kumari, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, Advocate
: Mr. Lovekush Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
4 18-02-2026 Heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior
counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Dr. Indiwar Kumari, learned
APP for the State and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, learned
counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioners seek bail in a case registered for
the offence punishable under Sections 326, 103(1), 3(5) of the
B.N.S., 2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant stated
that upon hearing his father screaming from the community
hall, he rushed to the spot and found his father set on fire.
When he raised an alarm for help, the petitioners and others
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82623 of 2025(4) dt.18-02-2026
2/5
allegedly fled away from the place of occurrence.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners
submits that upon a bare perusal of the First Information
Report, it would be evident that the deceased was seen at 2:00
O’Clock in the night burning on flames and the informant has
only stated that he had seen the petitioners running away from
near the place of occurrence. It has further been submitted that
from the various paragraphs of the case diary, being paragraph
nos.37, 38 and 94 etc., that when the police tried to take a
confidential information it was found that there was land
dispute between the parties and it is on account of such that the
petitioners have been made an accused although they do not
have any complicity in the same. Further, in paragraph-38 of
the case diary, it has been stated that spy has also reported that
the deceased used to sleep in the community hall on a wooden
cot and twice earlier also he got burnt on account of Heater and
in the present occurrence also it was said that there was a
possibility of getting burnt by Heater. Further, this fact of the
deceased sleeping in the community hall further negates the
fact that the informant would have seen his father burning as
well as the accused persons fleeing away from the place of
occurrence, as such, the version of the informant is also
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82623 of 2025(4) dt.18-02-2026
3/5
doubtful. The petitioners are in custody since 10.09.2025 and
charge-sheet has been submitted.
5. Learned counsel for the informant while
vehemently opposing the grant of bail has pointed out that the
case has now been committed to the Court of sessions and he
also undertakes that once the charges are framed, he would be
able to examine all his witnesses within six months. It has been
further pointed out that the informant in the First Information
Report has disclosed the names of both the petitioners and
during the course of investigation also it has transpired that
petitioner no.1, Jaiprakash Sharma @ Pintu has been found
fleeing away from the place of occurrence. The deceased is
also said to have taken the name of petitioner no.1 of putting
him on fire but, however, the police officer who was along with
the informant has not supported such factum of disclosure
made by the deceased.
6. The FSL report is also on record which discloses
the fact that ‘Kerosene’ was detected in the contents of the
exhibits marked A, B and C and ‘Dichlorophenyl’ was deteced
in the contents of exhibits marked D1 and D2.
7. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and also considering the fact that the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82623 of 2025(4) dt.18-02-2026
4/5
no.1 has been specifically named in the First Information
Report by way of disclosure made by the deceased to the
informant and also his name being disclosed in the other
materials collected during the course of investigation, coupled
with the FSL report, this Court is not inclined to grant the
privilege of bail to the petitioner no.1, namely Jaiprakash
Sharma @ Pintu. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the
petitioner no.1 is hereby rejected.
8. However, so far the petitioner no.2 is concerned,
he is a senior citizen and his name does not transpire during the
course of investigation, as such, let the above named petitioner
no.2, namely Ravindra Sharma, be released on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Hilsa
(Nalanda)/concerned Court below in connection with Telhara
P.S. Case No. 09 of 2025 subject to condition that:-
(i) The petitioner no.2 shall remain
physically present in court on each and every date during
trial and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates
without sufficient reasons, his bail bonds shall be liable
to be cancelled by the learned court concerned.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.82623 of 2025(4) dt.18-02-2026
5/5
9. The learned Trial Court is also directed to
proceed expeditiously with the trial without giving any
unnecessary adjournments and preferably conclude the same
within a period of six months as it has been undertaken on
behalf of the informant that he would be examining his
witnesses within the stipulated period after framing of charge.
11. Accordingly, this application is partly allowed.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
U T
Checking your session…