IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23503 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-158 Year-2022 Thana- SASARAM MUFFSIL District- Rohtas ====================================================== Shankar Ram S/O Buchan Ram Resident of Village- Dhankara Police Station- Sasaram(M), (Dhaudadh OP), Dist.- Rohtas. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kamla Kant Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4 14-07-2026 Heard Mr. Kamla Kant Pandey, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sasaram (M) (Dhaudadh O.P) P.S. Case No. 158 of 2022, registered for the offenses punishable under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 379, 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of Arms Act. 3. Allegedly, on the given date and time of occurrence, the petitioner along with others barged into the house of the informant and started assaulting and looting valuables. It is further alleged that this petitioner has resorted firing over the informant and her son, due to which they sustained injuries over their leg and hands respectively. 4. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in fact the present case is nothing but Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23503 of 2026(4) dt.14-07-2026 2/2 an offshoot of the cast rivalry, besides the injuries allegedly sustained to the informant and her son is concerned, the same are found to be simple in nature. So far the allegation with regard to theft is concerned, the same has not been specifically alleged against the petitioner. Moreover, the present case is nothing but a counter-blast to Sasaram (Muffasil) P.S. Case no. 155 of 2022 instituted on 04.04.2022, whereas the present case has been instituted on 06.04.2022 after a delay of two days. 5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State submitted that the injury report clearly corroborate the allegation of firing as the injuries are said to have been penetrating through small particle object. The petitioner appears to be habitual offender, who is carrying four criminal antecedents and, as such, he vehemently submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail. 6. Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the specific accusation of causing firearm injury, besides the multiple criminal antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not acceded to the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner. Accordingly, the same stands rejected. siddharth/- (Harish Kumar, J) U T