Shravan Sah @ Sravan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71641 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-225 Year-2025 Thana- PAKRIDAYAL District- East Champaran ====================================================== Shravan Sah @ Sravan Kumar Son of Bideshi Sah Resident of Village - Rasmandal, P.S. - Pipra, District - East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 22-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Pakaridayal P.S. Case No. 225 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per prosecution case, petitioner is said to have fired upon informant's son by means of pistol as a result of which informant's son sustained injury on his left shoulder.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence as alleged in the FIR and petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Petitioner bears criminal antecedent of two cases.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71641 of 2025(4) dt.22-12-2025 2/2

5. The learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner by submitting that there is specific allegation of firing against the petitioner upon the informant's son. He further submits that impugned order clearly reveals that in para 61 of the case diary, it has been mentioned that doctor has found fire arm injury i.e. entry wound on the left shoulder of the informant's son (Pawan Kumar) and for recovery of pellet, which was removed from the shoulder of injured, seizure list was prepared, which is mentioned in para 44 of the case diary. Hence, petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner, injury discussed in the impugned order as well as material available on record, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J) alok/- U T