Court denied anticipatory bail based on specific allegations of firearm injury and the petitioner's criminal antecedents.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

6 21-01-2026 Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Mahuar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned APP for the State. The informant is represented through Mr.

Navjot Yeshu, learned Advocate.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Rahui (Bhaganbigha) P.S. Case No.77 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 190 , 191(2), 191(3), 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 352 of the BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act .

3. Allegedly, in the night of the fateful day, while the informant was going to Bihar Sharif, in the meanwhile, seven named accused persons, including the petitioner surrounded him and started abusing him. It is specifically alleged that the petitioner fired upon him, due to which he sustained injury on his head.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner, taking this Court through the FIR, has contended that the alleged occurrence took place on 05.02.2025 at 10:10 P.M. and the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded on the same day at 10:43 P.M., which prima facie shows that the informant was in a good mental and physical condition to make his fardbeyan. The entire prosecution case falls to the ground for the simple reason that the nature of injury is not only said to be simple, but the doctor opined that it may be a firearm injury. During the course of investigation, it has also come that there was land dispute between the parties and, as such, the false implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has been working as Station Master and posted at Gauchhari Station and the police has not verified this fact as to whether on the date of occurrence he was on duty or not.

5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State and the learned Advocate for the informant opposed the bail application and submitted that besides the specific accusation of causing firearm injury over the head of the informant, which is a vital part, the injury report clearly suggests that a blackish brown lacerated wound over right-side forehead of size approx, 2”x½” x skin deep with totting present around wound and undoubtedly it is a firearm injury. Moreover the petitioner also bears two criminal antecedents, which fortified his criminal activity. The plea of alibi is good for the trial and not for the anticipatory bail, which is an extraordinary relief, is the contention of the learned Advocate for the informant.

6. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of the specific accusation of causing firearm injury over the head, though the injury is simple, but it cannot be ruled out that the informant was fortunate enough, besides the two criminal antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not acceded to the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, his prayer is rejected.

(Harish Kumar, J)