Patna High Court
Suresh NatversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the allegations were specific and the offences were grave.
Summary
The petitioner, Suresh Nat, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act, alleging he fired a pistol and injured an informant on 13-11-2024. The prosecution alleged his participation in an assault and shooting, while the petitioner claimed innocence and clean antecedents, asserting false implication. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the specific accusation of causing gun‑shot injury and the seriousness of the offences. The Court examined the nature of the allegations, the direct involvement alleged, and the gravity of the offences. Concluding that the accusations were specific and serious, the Court rejected the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the specific accusation of firing a pistol and the gravity of the offences under the B.N.S. and Arms Act.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- Arms Act
- B.N.S.
- assault
- bail denial
- gravity of offence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84117 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-321 Year-2024 Thana- ARA MUFFSIL District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Suresh Nat Son of Genda Nat Resident of Village - Mathwaliya P.S - Ara
Mufasil, District - Bhojpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Akash Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Amitesh Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 118(1), 109 and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the
Arms Act.
3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that on
13.11.2024 at about 08:30 PM, all the F.I.R. named accused
persons, including this petitioner, assaulted informant and others
and this petitioner fired from his pistol which hit the thigh of
informant.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
committed no offence. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84117 of 2025(2) dt.09-02-2026
2/2
this case with ulterior motive. Petitioner claims clean
antecedents.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R.
with specific accusation that he caused gun shot injury to the
informant.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, specific and direct nature of accusation and gravity of
offence, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner
is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…