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) 3415

PATNA HIGH COURT
PARTHA SARTHY, J
Dhirendra Kumar, Saheb Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3481 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Upendra Kumar Singh
For the Respondents: Mr. Anand Kishore Choudhary, APP

The court granted anticipatory bail emphasizing the absence of injuries and the general nature of the accusations, highlighting judicial discretion in such matters.

Headnote:This judgment relates to anticipatory bail under sections 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioners contend they are falsely implicated due to a prior dispute. The court notes no injuries resulted and directs their release on bail upon fulfilling certain conditions. The key issue discussed relates to the extent of judicial discretion in granting bail amidst allegations.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

2 28-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners have preferred this application for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending their arrest in connection with Dhanarua P.S. Case no.501 of 2025, registered under sections 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 27 of the Arms Act .

3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that as a result of prior dispute between the parties, the four named accused persons including the two petitioners herein as also four unknown accused persons came to the informant’s house and started to hurl abuses. It is further stated that they started pelting bricks and stones and thereafter the petitioners herein as also one Satendra Prasad resorted to indiscriminate firing with a pistol.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case as a result of prior dispute between the parties which is evident from the contents of the F.I.R. itself. Besides the allegations being general and omnibus in nature, no person was injured in the entire occurrence nor any incriminating article recovered from the place of occurrence. The petitioners undertake to cooperate in the investigation/trial.

5. The application for anticipatory bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the contents of the F.I.R., taking into consideration the admitted dispute between the parties and especially no person having been injured in the entire occurrence, it is directed that both the petitioners above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks, be released on anticipatory bail in connection with Dhanarua P.S. Case no.501 of 2025 on each of them furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Masaurhi, Patna.

(Partha Sarthy, 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