Patna High Court
Shami Anannd @ Shummy AnandversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SANJAY KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The court held that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Shami Anand, was arrested in connection with a murder case (PS case no. 579 of 2025) and charged under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 25(1‑b)a, 26 and 27 of the Arms Act. The informant, father of the deceased, alleged that the petitioner, along with unknown persons, committed the murder, but there was no eye‑witness or direct evidence linking the recovered pistol and cartridges to the petitioner. The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated, had no credible evidence against him, and had been in custody since 25‑04‑2025. The prosecution opposed bail but did not dispute the lack of direct evidence. The court, noting the absence of eyewitnesses, the completed investigation, the low risk of flight or tampering, and the heavy docket causing trial delay, decided to grant bail with conditions. The bail bond was set at Rs. 25,000 with two sureties and specific conditions to ensure cooperation and prevent interference with the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a murder and arms possession case despite lack of direct evidence and eyewitnesses.
- Whether the accused poses a risk of fleeing, tampering with evidence, or misusing liberty if released on bail.
- Whether the nature and severity of the offences under the BNS and Arms Act preclude the grant of bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Arms Act
- BNS
- lack of evidence
- trial delay
- presumption of innocence
- conditions of bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91214 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-579 Year-2025 Thana- PHULWARISHARIF District- Patna
======================================================
Shami Anannd @ Shummy Anand Son of Dharmendra Kumar @ Vimal
Sharma Resident of Village - Nawa Block, Punpun, P.O. - Pipra, P.S.- Pipra,
District - Patna, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ashutosh Nath, Adv.
Mr.Amritanshu Dangi, Adv.
Mr.Kunal Raushan, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Dilip Kumar No.1, APP
Mr.Sayed Imran Ghani, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 1.By means of this bail application, petitioner, who is
involved in connection with Phulwarisharif PS case no. 579 of
2025 registered for the offences under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of
BNS and under sections 25(1-b)a/26 and 27 of the Arms Act
seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.
2.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public
Prosecutor representing the State.
3.As per the prosecution case, informant who is father of
the deceased-Navneet Kumar gave an application to police on
11.04.2025 stating inter alia that on 11.04.2025 at about 1:30
PM, his son Navneet Kumar was murdered. Regarding the said
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91214 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/5
incident he received an information at about 4:00 P.M. At the
spot a pistol and some cartridges were also found. He has
suspicion that Shummy Anand along with unknown persons got
his son murdered.
4.It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that
petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this
case due to ulterior motive. It is further submitted that there is
no eye-witness of the alleged incident. During investigation, the
Investigating Officer without collecting any credible and direct
evidence against the petitioner made him accused only on the
basis of suspicion raised in the mind of the informant treating
his suspicion as gospel truth. Even, there is no evidence to
connect the alleged recovered pistol and the cartridges with the
petitioner. The petitioner, has criminal history of two cases, out
of which, in one case, he has been acquitted and in the other
case, he is on bail. Averments in this regard have been
mentioned in paragraph no.3 of the bail application. Several
other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the
allegations made against the petitioner have also been placed
forth before the Court. Lastly, it is submitted that petitioner is
languishing in jail since 25.04.2025 and in case he is released on
bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91214 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
3/5
trial.
5.Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer
for bail of the applicant reiterating the prosecution case as
mentioned in F.I.R. but they do not dispute the averment made
in bail application and the submission made at the bar on behalf
of the petitioner.
6.Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record, I find that it is not in dispute that
there is no eye-witness of the incident and there is no direct
evidence against the petitioner. The investigation has been
completed and charge-sheet has been submitted against the
petitioner. Now there is no possibility of tampering with the
witnesses. Due to heavy docket of the cases, the possibility of
conclusion of trial of the petitioner in near future is very bleak.
There is no chance of the petitioner, of fleeing away from the
judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. As
on date there is no material on record to presume that there is
danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail to
the petitioner.
7.In view of the above, without entering into merit of the
case, keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91214 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
4/5
severity of punishment, complicity of the petitioner,
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties made at the
bar and reasons as noted above, this Court is of the opinion that
the petitioner is liable to be released on bail.
8.Accordingly, the bail application of the petitioner stands
allowed.
9.Let the petitioner namely Shami Anand @ Shummy
Anand be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only)
with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of
the Court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) That the petitioner shall cooperate with the expeditious
disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the Court unless
inevitable. Two consecutive default in putting appearance shall
lead to an action towards cancellation of the bail bond of the
petitioner.
(ii) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly
make any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or
tamper with the evidence.
(iii) That the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly involve in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91214 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
5/5
any criminal activity after being released on bail.
(iv) In case, at any stage it is found that the petitioner has
disclosed his incomplete criminal history before this Court,
learned Court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner
after hearing him and getting satisfied that the petitioner has
concealed his criminal antecedents despite his knowledge of the
same.
(v) In case, it is brought to the notice of the Court below
that statement regarding previous bail petition is wrong, learned
Court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
10.It is clarified that anything said in this order is limited
to the purpose of determination of this bail application and will
in no way be construed as an expression on the merits of the
case. The trial court shall be absolutely free to arrive at its
independent conclusions on the basis of evidence led unaffected
by anything said in this order.
11.The trial Court shall make an endeavour to conclude
the trial of the petitioner expeditiously without granting
unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.
(Sanjay Kumar Singh , J)
pallavi/-
U T
Checking your session…