Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Gaurav Kumar @ Suro @ Shuro @ Gautom KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied as the petitioner’s criminal antecedent and the seriousness of the offences preclude relief.

Summary

The petitioner, Gaurav Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case (PS Nawada Case No.1072 of 2025) filed under several sections of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act. The prosecution alleged that after dropping a patient, the petitioner stopped an ambulance, forced the informant to sit on a motorcycle, demanded money and assaulted him, leading to the FIR. The petitioner’s counsel argued that despite a prior criminal case against the informant, the petitioner should be granted bail. The State’s counsel highlighted the petitioner’s own criminal antecedents and the seriousness of the offences. Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the petitioner’s criminal record, the court rejected the anticipatory bail application.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner given the nature of the offences under the BNS Act and his criminal antecedent?

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • criminal antecedent
  • Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
  • assault
  • extortion
  • bail denial
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15258 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1072 Year-2025 Thana- NAWADA District- Nawada
                 ======================================================
                 Gaurav Kumar @ Suro @ Shuro @ Gautom Kumar Son of Vijay Singh R/o
                 Village - Asarhi @ Asadhi, P.S. - Nawada Nagar, Dist. - Nawada.

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Arvind Kumar, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Bharat Bhushan, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   12-03-2026                  Heard the parties.

                                2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection

                   with Nawada Nagar P.S. Case No. 1072 of 2025 instituted under

                   Sections 115(2), 126(2), 117(2), 140(2), 352, 351(3), 3(5) of

                   BNS Act          lodged on 11.10.2025 by the informant,Sundram

                   Kumar.

                                3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged

                   that after dropping a patient at Nawada, when he was returning,

                   the accused persons stopped the ambulance, made him to sit in

                   the middle of the motorcycle and demanded amount while

                   beating him. Once out of their clutches, he went to the Police

                   Station and the FIR.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   though he has criminal antecedent, earlier case was lodged
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15258 of 2026(2) dt.12-03-2026
                                                         2/2




                       against the informant which led to the present case.

                                    5. Learned APP, Mr. Bharat Bhushan opposes the

                       prayer submitting that not only the learned Sessions Judge has

                       recorded injuries to the informant, he has criminal antecedent.

                                    6.    Considering the aforesaid submissions of the

                       parties as also the criminal antecedent, no relief can be

                       extended, the anticipatory bail application is rejected.



                                                      (Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-

U        T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.