Patna High Court
Dewa GuptaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- JITENDRA KUMAR
Holding
The court allowed the bail petition, granting anticipatory bail subject to conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Dewa Gupta, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a 2016 shooting incident for which an FIR was lodged under IPC sections 307, 34, 120B and Arms Act section 27. The prosecution’s case relied solely on confessional statements of co‑accused, with no material recovered from the petitioner’s possession and no prior summons in nine years. The petitioner argued innocence, lack of admissible evidence, and that his political standing negated any flight risk, while the State highlighted his extensive criminal antecedents. The court held that confessional statements without corroboration lack evidentiary value and that past cases, many resulting in bail or acquittal, cannot justify denial of liberty. It further observed that criminal antecedents alone do not constitute a ground to refuse bail. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail, imposing a bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S 2023. The order directed the petitioner to surrender within eight weeks if arrested, subject to compliance with the stipulated conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the only evidence against the petitioner is uncorroborated confessional statements of co‑accused.
- Whether the petitioner’s extensive criminal antecedents justify denial of bail.
- Whether there is a likelihood of the petitioner fleeing or tampering with evidence.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- B.N.S.S., 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 307, 34
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedents
- flight risk
- IPC 307
- IPC 34
- IPC 120B
- Arms Act 27
- political figure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16377 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-422 Year-2016 Thana- MOTIHARI TOWN District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Dewa Gupta S/O Hari Kishore Gupta R/O Mohalla- Ward No 18, Barhai Tola,
P.S- Chhtauni, District- East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Nandita Rao, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Nilanjan Chatterjee, Advocate
Mr. Kumaresh Singh, Advocate
Mr. Ujjwal Raj, Advocate
Mr. Sahil Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Anirvan Choudhari, Advocate
Mr. Jyoti Prakash, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 25-03-2026 The petitioner seeks bail, apprehending his arrest, in
connection with Motihari Town P.S. Case No. 422 of 2016 dated
03.07.2016, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 307, 34, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27
of the Arms Act.
2. As per allegation, on 02.07.2016 at about 9:00 AM,
the informant was talking with one Keshav Kumar near
Ananddham temple, Belwanwa. Meanwhile, two persons came
on one Apache motorcycle and started firing at Keshav Kumar
in which the informant received gunshot injury in his arm and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16377 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
2/6
hence, he was taken to Sadar hospital, Motihari, whereas
Keshav Kumar was referred to Patna.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and there is no legally admissible material
on record against the petitioner. She further points out that the
FIR was lodged in the year of 2016 on the 2 nd day of July and
till date, three charge-sheets have been already submitted, but in
none of them, the petitioner was made accused. Only on the
basis of confessional statement of co-accused before the police,
the petitioner is being hauled up with intent to harass him and
even as per the confessional statement, there is no allegation
that he has any overt act in the assault. At most, there is
allegation of providing assistance to the accused persons for
which there is no material on record to support the allegation.
5. She further submits that no incriminating material
has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. She
also submits that for want of any legally admissible material
against the petitioner, there is no basis for denial of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner.
6. She further submits that during the last nine years,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16377 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
3/6
the petitioner was never summoned or called in connection with
this case and even police did not find any material against the
petitioner in investigation.
7. She also submits that the petitioner is an active
politician and there is no likelihood of running away from the
society and he is ready to co-operate in the investigation and
attend the Court whenever required. The petitioner is also ready
to comply with any terms and conditions as might be directed
by this Court.
8. However, learned APP for the State vehemently
opposes the prayer of the Petitioner for bail submitting that the
petitioner is a man of criminal antecedents of 30 cases. He
further submits that in his confessional statement, co-
accused/Yuvraj Prabhu has stated that the petitioner is one who
provides protection and economic assistance to the assailants of
the victim/Keshav Kumar as emerges from the para-40 of the
first supplementary case diary and as per para-61 of first
supplementary case diary, the petitioner is a land mafia and due
to rivalry, their associates have fired at the victim/Keshav
Kumar.
9. He also submits that the co-accused/Rakesh Kumar
Singh in his confessional statement, as mentioned in para-92 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16377 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
4/6
the first supplementary of the case diary, has stated that due to
rivalry, he along with his associates Laddu Miya and Lal Saheb
have fired at the victim/Keshav Kumar. The victim/Keshav
Kumar, as mentioned in para-56, 57 and 58 of the 2 nd
supplementary affidavit, has stated that at the instance of the
petitioner, co-accused persons have fired at him.
10. By way of reply, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that in other criminal cases filed against the petitioner,
he is either on bail or has been discharged or acquitted and in
five criminal cases, the petitioner is not named in the FIR, but
the police is showing them pending against him.
11. I considered the submissions advanced by both the
parties and perused the material on record.
12. It transpires that the subject FIR has been lodged
on 03.07.2016 for offence punishable under Section 307 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the
Arms Act. However, later on, Section 120B of IPC was also
added in the FIR. It further transpires from the rival contentions
of the parties that during the last nine years, nothing has been
found against the petitioner.
13. I further find that even today, the best case of the
prosecution against the petitioner is the confessional statements
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16377 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
5/6
of the co-accused before the police. But such statement has no
evidentiary value at all for want of any discovery in pursuance
of such statements and it is not a case of the prosecution that
any incriminating material has been recovered against the
petitioner.
14. In such situations, even criminal antecedents,
which may be of large number, can not lead to denial of liberty
to the accused. Law will take its own recourse against the
petitioner in cases previously instituted against him. Moreover,
as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner, in the previously
instituted cases, the petitioner is either on bail or already
discharged or acquitted.
15. As such, there is no legally sustainable material
against the petitioner to curtail his precious liberty as granted
and guaranteed by the Constitution. Moreover, the petitioner has
deep root in the society and there is no possibility of his running
away from the society. The petitioner is ready to co-operate in
the investigation and attend the Court whenever required.
16. 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16377 of 2026(2) dt.25-03-2026
6/6
date of receipt / production of a copy of this order, on his
furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 /- (One lakh)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned concerned Court below, in connection with Motihari
Town P.S. Case No. 422 of 2016, 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 other than
the disclosed ones, 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)
shoaib/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.