SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 3083

PATNA HIGH COURT
Jitendra Kumar, J
Ratnesh Kumar @ Golu @ Golu Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.598 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Shailesh Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. Akbar Ali, APP

Provision for bail under specific sections of law, considering false implication and prior conduct.

Headnote:In this judgment, the court examined bail application under Sections 191(2), 126(2), 115(2), 109, 191(3) of BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner sought bail claiming false implication with no firearm injuries. The State opposed the bail citing facts but the court granted bail with conditions. The court emphasized previous bail misrepresentation consequences.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER

2 28-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail, apprehending his arrest, in connection with Mufassil P.S. Case No. 552 of 2025, dated 08.06.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 126(2), 115(2), 109, 191(3) of BNS and Section 27 of Arms Act .

3. As per allegation, the petitioner along with other co-accused were involved in firing over land dispute.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that as a matter of fact, there is no firing at all and there is no allegation of even causing any injury to anybody. He further submits that even at the place of alleged firing, there is no cartridge found by the police. He further submits that similarly situated co-accused, Vinay Kumar @ Binay Kumar Singh has been already enlarged on anticipatory bail by a Co-ordianate Bench of this Court vide order dated

16.12.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 78958 of 2025.

5. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier either for anticipatory bail or regular one in the instant case.

6. It has further been stated in paragraph no.3 of the bail petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.

7. However, learned APP for the State vehemently opposes the prayer of the Petitioner for bail.

8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this petition is allowed, directing the petitioner, above-named, to be enlarged on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order, on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned concerned Court Below, in connection with Mufassil P.S. Case No. 552 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 and on the following conditions:

(i) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court below that the petitioner has any criminal antecedents, learned court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner after hearing him and getting satisfied that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedents despite his knowledge of the same.

(ii) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court below that statement regarding previous bail petition is wrong, learned court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.

(Jitendra Kumar, J.)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top