Patna High Court
Golu Kumar Pandey @ Golu PandeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied to petitioner‑1 but granted to petitioner‑2 subject to conditions.
Summary
The petitioners, Golu Kumar Pandey and Jhunna Kumar Pandey, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under several sections of the Bihar Negotiable Statutes (BNS) arising from a land‑measurement dispute that allegedly led to assaults and a firearm injury to the informant's mother. The petitioner‑1 was specifically accused of firing at the informant, causing the injury, while petitioner‑2 faced only a general allegation. The State opposed the bail, arguing the seriousness of the firearm allegation and the risk of absconding, whereas the petitioners contended the FIR was vague, especially regarding petitioner‑2, and that the injury report cast doubt on the firearm claim. The court rejected anticipatory bail for petitioner‑1, finding the specific firearm allegation sufficient to deny relief, but granted anticipatory bail to petitioner‑2 subject to a bail bond and sureties, invoking Sections 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and 482(2) of the BNSS. The order thus partially granted the relief sought, with conditions for petitioner‑2 and denial for petitioner‑1.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner‑1 despite a specific allegation of causing firearm injury.
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to petitioner‑2 despite a general, omnibus allegation.
- Whether the existence of an ongoing investigation and risk of absconding justify denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Statutes (BNS) — s. 109, 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352
- Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- firearm injury
- FIR
- land dispute
- false implication
- Criminal law
- Section 438 Cr.P.C.
- Section 482 BNSS
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89770 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-147 Year-2025 Thana- NAUTAN District- West Champaran
======================================================
1. Golu Kumar Pandey @ Golu Pandey Son of Kameshwar pandey R/o
Mangalpur Kala, Ward no. 3, P.S. - Nautan, Distt. - West Champaran.
2. Jhunna Kumar @ Jhunna Kumar Pandey @ Jhuna Kumar Son of Arvind
Pandey R/o Mangalpur Kala, Ward no. 3, P.S. - Nautan, Distt. - West
Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 18-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 117(2), 109, 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of one case and petitioner no. 2 is
a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that on
account of dispute relating to measurement of land, Kameshwar
assaulted Ravikant by lathi and iron rod causing fracture of his
left leg while Pramod assaulted the informant by an iron rod
causing injury on his shoulder and back and also assaulted
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89770 of 2025(2) dt.18-02-2026
2/4
Aman causing injury on his head. Further, on orders of
Kameshwar, petitioner no. 1 fired missing the informant but
then his mother received firearm injury on her leg.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by
the informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that as far as
petitioner no. 2 is concerned, no specific allegation is alleged
against him and his case is on a much better footing than
Pramod Pandey who has been granted the privilege of
anticipatory bail by an order dated 11.08.2025 in Cr. Misc. No.
51100 of 2025 passed by a learned Coordinate Bench of this
Court. It is next submitted that as far as petitioner no. 1 is
concerned, the allegation against him initially in the FIR is of
assaulting the side of the informant by rod and thereafter it is
alleged that he fired at the informant but missed causing firearm
injury to his mother. It is also submitted that if petitioner no. 1
had any intention of causing firearm injury then why he would
have initially used rod for assault. It is further submitted that no
doubt, in the FIR, it is alleged that petitioner no. 1 fired causing
firearm injury to the mother of the informant but then the
Doctor, in the injury report, has recorded suspected firearm
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89770 of 2025(2) dt.18-02-2026
3/4
injury which casts an aspersion on the case of the prosecution as
to whether the mother of the informant was hit by firearm.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant opposed the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioners. It is submitted that no doubt,
the allegation against petitioner no. 2 is general and omnibus in
nature but then as far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, there is
specific allegation against him of causing firearm injury to the
mother of the informant. It is further submitted that the Doctor
also has opined that the injury is suspected to be caused by
firearm. It is next submitted that investigation in the case is
continuing and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the
petitioners, the petitioners may abscond.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner no. 1, namely, Golu Kumar Pandey @ Golu
Pandey, who is alleged to have fired causing firearm injury to
the mother of the informant, accordingly, his prayer for
anticipatory bail is rejected.
7. As far as petitioner no. 2, namely, Jhunna Kumar
@ Jhunna Kumar Pandey @ Jhuna Kumar is concerned, let the
petitioner no. 2, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89770 of 2025(2) dt.18-02-2026
4/4
period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail
on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned trial court where the case is pending/Successor
Court in connection with Nautan P.S. Case No. 147 of 2025,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the BNSS.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…