Patna High Court
Golu Pandey @ Vikesh Kumar Pandey @ Galu PandeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to bond, sureties and conditions, exercising its inherent powers under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
Summary
The petitioner, Golu Pandey, was accused of multiple offences under the B.N.S., 2023 arising from an altercation over irrigation of agricultural land on 23 July 2025, during which he allegedly fired a pistol (which misfired) and assaulted the informant with the butt of the pistol, causing a head injury, and later assaulted the informant’s father. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, submitting that he is a 27‑year‑old student with a clean record, that the FIR does not charge under the Arms Act, and that the injuries were minor except for the head wound. The State opposed bail, arguing the seriousness of the injuries and the risk of the petitioner absconding. The court examined the submissions, noted the petitioner’s first‑offence status and lack of Arms Act charge, and exercised its inherent powers under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. to grant anticipatory bail. The bail was conditioned on a Rs 10,000 bond, two sureties of equal amount, and a provision that the trial court may cancel bail if the petitioner fails to cooperate with the investigation.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S. in view of the alleged offences.
- Whether the absence of an Arms Act charge and the petitioner’s first‑offence status justify bail.
- Whether the petitioner poses a risk of absconding or obstructing the investigation.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 109, 115, 117, 126, 3, 303, 351, 352, 482
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 482
- B.N.S. 2023
- first offence
- arms act
- assault
- criminal procedure
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9788 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-278 Year-2025 Thana- JAGDISHPUR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Golu Pandey @ Vikesh Kumar Pandey @ Galu Pandey S/o Satendra Pandey
Resident of Village - Diul, P.S.- Jagdishpur, District- Bhojpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Akanksha Malviya, Adv.
Mr. Akash Keshav, Adv.
Ms. Naina Nancy, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Tarun Prasad Mandal, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Abhishek, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 06-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2),
115(2), 117(2), 109(1), 303(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the
B.N.S., 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in
compliance of the order dated 30.03.2026, a supplementary
affidavit has been filed bringing on record the education
certificates of the petitioner. It is next submitted that petitioner
is a young boy, aged about 27 years and is a person with clean
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9788 of 2026(3) dt.06-04-2026
2/5
antecedent and the informant alleges that on 23.07.2025 at 11
P.M. while he along with his father were irrigating their
agricultural land, when the accused persons including the
petitioner came variously armed and stopped the boring by
which the land was being irrigated, on protest, accused
Satyendra said that he would irrigate the land first, on account
of which, an altercation took place and on order of Satyendra,
petitioner fired from his pistol but the shot misfired, thereafter
the petitioner assaulted the informant by butt of pistol causing
injury on head, thereafter all the accused persons assaulted the
informant with lathi, danda and rod with an intention to kill, on
account of which, several injuries were caused and when
informant’s father came to his rescue, he was also assaulted by
the accused persons by lathi and rod causing fracture of his 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
allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that
informant alleges that all the accused persons assaulted him and
his father brutally and thereafter threw them in Badhar (Bushes).
It is next submitted that the injury suffered by the injured has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9788 of 2026(3) dt.06-04-2026
3/5
been opined to be simple in nature except one injury of the
informant on head, alleged to have been caused on account of
assault made by the petitioner by butt of pistol. Learned Counsel
next submits that petitioner is a student and in support of the
same, his Matriculation and Intermediate certificates have been
brought on record along with the Diploma which he has done
from ITI institute. It is next submitted that petitioner has
recently passed his Craftsman Training Scheme in the year
2025. It is also submitted that though it is alleged that petitioner
initially fired but then the shot misfired, thereafter petitioner
assaulted by butt of pistol causing injury on head of the
informant but then the FIR has not been instituted under the
Arms Act. It is next submitted that from side of the petitioner,
Jagdishpur P.S. Case No.285/2025 has been instituted against
the informant and his side. It is also submitted that on a trivial
issue of irrigating the land, the occurrence is alleged to have
taken place. It is next submitted that in Jagdishpur P.S. Case
No.285 of 2025, the injury suffered by the informant has been
explained that while fleeing he dashed against a pole, leading
to the injury on his head. It is next submitted that even
presuming what has been alleged is true without admitting then
this is the first offence of the petitioner and if petitioner is sent
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9788 of 2026(3) dt.06-04-2026
4/5
to judicial custody, his entire career would get jeopardized and
chances are bright that he may come in contact with hardened
criminals.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State and the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the informant submits that specific allegation of
assaulting the informant on head by butt of pistol causing injury
is alleged against the petitioner and the injury has been opined
to be grievous in nature and the petitioner was treated at PMCH
but then is not in a position to rebut the submission of the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that this is
the first offence of the petitioner and petitioner is a student and
the FIR has not been instituted under the Arms Act and if he is
sent to judicial custody, chances are bright that he may come in
contact with hardened criminals. Learned counsel for the
informant, at this stage, submits that if the privilege of
anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may
abscond, on which, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner submits that petitioner will not abscond rather will
cooperate in the investigation to prove his innocence.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9788 of 2026(3) dt.06-04-2026
5/5
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender within a 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 Jagdishpur P.S. Case No.278/2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) B.N.S.S.
7. Further, one of the bailors of the petitioner shall be
his cousin brother, namely, Chandan Kumar Pandey.
8. However, it is made clear that in the event if the
Investigating Officer of the case files an application before the
learned trial court bringing to its notice that the petitioner
despite giving assurance to this court is not co-operating in the
investigation in that event the learned trial court shall be at
liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…