Patna High Court
Sandeep Kumar @ Prince Kumar @ Princi KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Sandeep Kumar, applied for anticipatory bail in a case registered under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, alleging that the FIR was against unknown persons and that a co-accused, Aman, had confessed that the petitioner, who is the informant's brother, had commissioned the firing. The petitioner’s counsel highlighted his clean record, a simple injury, and a property dispute with the informant, arguing lack of probability of his involvement. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the confessional statement implicating the petitioner, the firearm nature of the injury, and ongoing investigation. The court considered the submissions and found the allegations sufficient to deny anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the FIR and the confessional statement of a co-accused.
- Whether the alleged property dispute and the nature of the injury affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 307 IPC
- Arms Act Section 27
- firearm injury
- confessional statement
- property dispute
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9474 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-162 Year-2024 Thana- NAWADA District- Nawada
======================================================
Sandeep Kumar @ Prince Kumar @ Princi Kumar S/o- Surendra Sharma R/o
- Jal Mandir, Gonawan, P.S - Nawada, District - Nawada
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Amresh Kumar Sinha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajendra Nath Jha
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 27-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in Nawada P. S. Case No.162 of 2024 registered for the
offences punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. and Section 27 of
the Arms Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the
informant alleges that unknown accused fired causing firearm
injury near his left ear.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
FIR is against unknown and during the course of investigation
one Aman was arrested who confessed his participation in the
occurrence of firing at the informant and also disclosed that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9474 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
2/3
contract to commit the occurrence was given by the petitioner
who is own brother of the informant. It is also submitted that
during course of investigation, it transpired that petitioner from
mobile no.8936871315 had talked to Aman on his mobile
no.9693105088 and the said mobile registered in the name of
Anuj. It is further submitted that it does not appear probable that
petitioner being own brother of the informant would have got
the occurrence committed. It is next submitted that petitioner
and the informant are having dispute relating to property. It is
further submitted that even injury suffered by the injured has
been opined to be simple in nature.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application and submits that from perusal of the injury report it
would manifest that though injury has been opined to be simple
but then it is firearm injury and the name of the petitioner
transpired in the confessional statement of Aman who in his
statement accepted his participation in the occurrence thus the
statement is inculpatory and also disclosed that it was at the
behest of this petitioner that the occurrence was committed and
druing course of investigation, it transpired that petitioner was
in touch with Aman. It is also submitted that investigation in the
case is continuing.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9474 of 2026(3) dt.27-04-2026
3/3
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail
stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…