Patna High Court
CR. MISC./53745/2026 of Sudhir Kumar @ Sudhir Vs The State of Bihar on 18 August 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53745 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-343 Year-2025 Thana- ARA MUFFSIL District- Bhojpur ====================================================== 1. Sudhir Kumar @ Sudhir, Son of Raghubir Paswan @ Raghubar Paswan Resident of Village-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53745 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-343 Year-2025 Thana- ARA MUFFSIL District- Bhojpur
======================================================
1.
Sudhir Kumar @ Sudhir, Son of Raghubir Paswan @ Raghubar Paswan Resident of Village- Jamira, P.S. -Ara Muffasil, District -Bhojpur at Ara
2.
Manish Kumar @ Manish, son of Suneshwar Ray @ Sumeshwar Ray Resident of Village- Jamira, P.S. -Ara Muffasil, District -Bhojpur at Ara
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr.Ajay Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Tarun Prasad Mandal
======================================================
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 petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in Ara Muffasil P. S. Case No.343 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 132, 125, 109(1), 324(4) and 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 has antecedent of two cases and petitioner no.2 has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges that on 20.12.2025, he was on patrolling duty along with the force in between Danapur to DDU, when chain of Simanchal Express was pulled at 23.53 P.M. and the informant noticed that 10-12
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53745 of 2026(2) dt.18-08-2026
accused de-boarding the train with country-made pistol, hence the force tried to apprehended them, but they hid behind a bush and started pelting stones and were taking each others’ name as Sudhir, Niraj, Vikash and Manish and fled towards Jamira village firing.
4. The 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 allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the allegation of firing is general and omnibus in nature. It is also submitted that it is not the case of the prosecution that informant recognized the accused persons rather alleges that while fleeing the accused persons were taking name of each other, as such, they came to be implicated in the instant case.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that from perusal of the allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant alleges that at 23.53 P.M., the chain of Simanchal Express was pulled and 10-12 accused de-boarded the train with country-made pistol and when the force tried to apprehend them, they hid behind the bush and started pelting stone and also fired and fled towards Jamira village. It is next submitted that petitioners even have Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53745 of 2026(2) dt.18-08-2026
criminal antecedent and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to them, the petitioners may abscond or try to tamper with the evidence. It is next submitted that if petitioners are innocent, in that event, final form exonerating them of the allegations would be submitted, but then in the nature of allegation, investigation and interrogation is required.
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 petitioners.
7. The prayer of the petitioners for anticipatory bail stands rejected.
vikash/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T