Patna High Court

Rahul Kumar @ Rahul SharmaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 16 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: R P MISHRA

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied as the petitioner’s serious charges and criminal antecedents made him ineligible for such relief.

Summary

The petitioner, Rahul Kumar, applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 121(1), 132, 249, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that during a police raid on 29‑11‑2024, the petitioner fired at police and escaped. The petitioner contended that he was not present at the scene and was falsely implicated, while the State highlighted his five prior criminal convictions. The court examined the seriousness of the offences, the specific allegation of firing, and the petitioner’s criminal antecedent. Concluding that the case was not suitable for anticipatory bail, the court rejected the petitioner's bail request.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite serious charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act
Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of anticipatory bail
Whether the allegation of firing at police establishes sufficient grounds to deny bail

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 121(1), 132, 249, 3(5)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
criminal antecedent
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
Arms Act
bail denial
serious offences

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88801 of 2025
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-80 Year-2024 Thana- Pura police station District- Gaya
                 ======================================================
                 Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Sharma S/O Late Sudhanshu Sharma R/o Vill.- Bhori,
                 P.S - Pura, District - Gaya
                                                                        ... ... Petitioner/s
                                               Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                 ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :         Mr.Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :         Mr.Satya Nand Shukla, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
                 MISHRA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   16-01-2026                      Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

                   learned APP for the State.

                               2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Pura

                   P.S. Case No. 80 of 2024 instituted for the offence under

                   Sections 121(1), 132, 249 & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

                   Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

                               3. The prosecution alleges that on 29.11.2024, police

                   officials raided the houses of co-accused Brishketu Kumar and

                   Rahul Kumar (Petitioner) to arrest them in connection with

                   Civil Lines P.S. Case No. 511/2024. During the raid, the

                   informant was assaulted by Abhishek Kumar, who later fled.

                   Subsequently, accused Rahul Kumar (Petitioner) fired at the

                   police and also escaped under the cover of darkness.

                               4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

                   petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case.                       The

                   petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence. The
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88801 of 2025(2) dt.16-01-2026
                                                       2/2




                     informant is not claiming recovery of any fire arm injury or

                     blank cartridge from the place of occurrence. Learned counsel

                     for the petitioner submitted that general and omnibus allegation

                     has been made against the petitioner. It has been submitted on

                     behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has five criminal

                     antecedents.

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

                     opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. There is

                     specific allegation of firing against the petitioner. So far as

                     paragraph no.3 is concerned, the petitioner has five criminal

                     antecedents and he does not deserve privilege of anticipatory

                     bail.

                                  6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

                     of the case and also taking into consideration criminal

                     antecedent of the petitioner, in my view, this is not a fit case for

                     anticipatory bail, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to

                     the petitioner.

                                  7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory

                     bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.


                                           (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/-
U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…