Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Dhiraj KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

Anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner subject to conditions.

Summary

The petitioner, Dhiraj Kumar, was arrested in a case alleging that he fired four rounds of a firearm, though no one was injured. He contended that the case was fabricated out of a dispute over a damaged mobile phone, and asserted his innocence and clean antecedents. The State opposed his request for anticipatory bail, citing the charges under various sections of the Bihar Negotiable Statutes and the Arms Act. The Court considered that no injuries were caused and the petitioner had a clean record, and therefore granted anticipatory bail. The bail was conditioned on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and subject to Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the alleged offences under the B.N.S. and Arms Act.
  • Whether the absence of injury and the petitioner's clean antecedents justify the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

  • Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 27, 35
  • B.N.S. — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 329(3), 3(5), 351(2), 352

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • Arms Act
  • criminal law
  • false case
  • clean antecedents
  • no injury

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8682 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-46 Year-2025 Thana- MOHANPUR District- Samastipur
                 ======================================================
                 Dhiraj Kumar S/O Santosh Rai @ Cheddi Rai R/O Village - Hettanpur, P.S-
                 Patori, Dist. - Samastipur

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus

                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner      :       Mr. Aditya Nath Pandey, Advocate
                                                 Mr. Yeshoneel Ratnam, Advocate
                                                 Ms. Aprajita Kumari, Advocate
                 For the Stat            :       Mr. Satya Nand Shukla, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   23-02-2026                   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 329(3),

                   126(2), 115(2), 109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and

                   Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act.

                                 3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that this

                   petitioner, along with three associates, came on a vehicle and

                   thereafter, this petitioner fired four rounds of bullet, however, no

                   one sustained any injuries.

                                 4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on

                   behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8682 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026
                                            2/3




          committed no offence. As a matter of fact, the informant had

          damaged the mobile phone of this petitioner during repair work

          for which a Panchayati was convened and in which, the

          informant had sworn to give another mobile phone to the

          petitioner but when the petitioner demanded a fresh set of

          mobile from the informant, this false and concocted case has

          been lodged. Though this petitioner is alleged to have fired but

          no one has sustained any fire arm injuries. Petitioner claims

          clean antecedents.

                        5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently

          opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the

          petitioner.

                        6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

          case, fact that no one has sustained any fire arm injuries and

          clean antecedents of the petitioner, the prayer for grant of

          anticipatory bail to the petitioner is allowed.

                        7. Accordingly, in the event of arrest/surrender within

          a period of eight weeks from today, let the above named

          petitioner be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.

          10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount

          each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief Judicial

          Magistrate-1st, Patori, Samastipur in connection with Mohanpur
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8682 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026
                                                         3/3




                       P.S. Case No. 46 of 2025, subject to condition as laid down

                       under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S..



                                             (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.