Patna High Court
Pappu SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Pappu Singh applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case (Bhargama P.S. Case No. 182 of 2025) involving offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 352 and 3(5) of the BNS read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. He asserted that he has a clean record and that the informant’s allegations – that he assaulted her son and fired a weapon causing a simple injury – are false and stem from a land dispute. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing that the FIR alleges a serious firearm injury and that the investigation is at an early stage. The court examined the submissions and, finding the allegations serious and the investigation ongoing, declined to grant anticipatory bail. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the nature of the alleged offences and the stage of investigation.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- firearm injury
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- pre‑trial liberty
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.87785 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-182 Year-2025 Thana- BHARGAMA District- Araria
======================================================
Pappu Singh S/o Late Rajendra Singh Resident of Village- Paikpar, Ward No.
12, P.S.- Bhargama, District- Araria
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kishore Bharti, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 22-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Bhargama P.S. Case No. 182 of 2025 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109,
352 and 3(5) of the BNS read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that accused persons came to her house and started
demolishing the fence, on protest petitioner assaulted her son
Raja by slap and thereafter fired causing injury on her left hand.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.87785 of 2025(2) dt.22-01-2026
2/2
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that on
account of dispute relating to land, the occurrence is alleged to
have taken place. It is next submitted that no doubt it is alleged
that petitioner fired causing firearm injury on hand of the son of
the informant, but then injury has been opined to be simple.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes
the anticipatory bail application and submits that allegation is of
firing causing injury and the investigation of the case is in its
nascent stages.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail
application stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…