Patna High Court
CR. APP (SJ)/1327/2025 of Bulu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar on 18 August 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1327 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-40 Year-2024 Thana- PANDARAK District- Patna ====================================================== Bulu Kumar S/o- Viveka Yadav @ Vivek Ray Village- Bhuapur Ps- Pandark Dist- Patna ... ... Appellant/s
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1327 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-40 Year-2024 Thana- PANDARAK District- Patna ======================================================
Bulu Kumar S/o- Viveka Yadav @ Vivek Ray Village- Bhuapur Ps- Pandark Dist- Patna
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar Bihar
2.
Arun Paswan S/o- Late Bhagwan Paswan Village- Bhuapur Ps- Pandarak Dist- Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s
:
Mr.Manoj Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent/s
:
Mr.Sadanand Paswan, Special PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
18-08-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Spl. P.P. for the State, Mr. Sadanand Paswan.
2. This is an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST Act”) against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide order dated 07.03.2025 in A.B.P. No. 843 of 2025 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Patna in connection with Pandarak P.S. Case No. 40 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act as well as Sections 3(i)(r)(s) and 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1327 of 2025(15) dt.18-08-2026
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that appellant is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that on 17.02.2024 at 11:30 PM, a cultural program was organized in the village, on the eve of Saraswati Pooja, further five named accused persons including the appellant came and demanded to play bhojpuri song, on objection by boys present in the program, the accused persons resorted to firing indiscriminately causing injury on thumb of right leg of the informant and Rohit suffered injury on his thigh and injured were admitted in the hospital.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant 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 accused persons including the appellant was present at the place of occurrence and a dispute arose on playing of song when indiscriminate firing was resorted to, but then allegation of firing is not specific.
5. Learned Spl. P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the appellant and submits that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that in the firing resorted to by the accused persons two persons Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1327 of 2025(15) dt.18-08-2026
were injured and injury of Rohit has been opined to be grievous in nature as would manifest from the injury report, it is also submitted that though allegation of firing is not specific, but then presence of the accused persons including the appellant at the place of occurrence emboldened the accused to resort to firing.
6. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that investigation in the case is continuing and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted, the appellant will not abscond rather will co-operate in the investigation to prove his innocence.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned Special PP for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellant.
8. Thus, this appeal is rejected.
nitesh/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T