Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Dipu Kumar Gupta @ Deepu Kumar GuptaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The Court held that regular bail cannot be granted to the petitioner under the present circumstances.

Summary

The petitioner, Dipu Kumar Gupta, was arrested under Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 in connection with a case pending before the Additional District and Sessions Judge‑IV, Gopalganj. An earlier bail order dated 07‑11‑2023 conditioned his release on the framing of charge, but his bail bond was cancelled on 27‑01‑2025 for non‑appearance, leading to a non‑bailable warrant and a proclamation on 05‑02‑2025. The petitioner surrendered on 17‑02‑2026 and has since been in judicial custody, seeking regular bail. The State opposed the bail application, arguing the petitioner’s failure to appear and the issuance of a proclamation. The High Court, after considering the facts and submissions, declined to grant regular bail, though it allowed the petitioner to file a fresh bail application after two months. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the prior cancellation of his bail bond, issuance of a non‑bailable warrant, and proclamation.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • regular bail
  • prohibition and excise
  • Section 30(a)
  • non‑appearance
  • proclamation
  • judicial custody

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18624 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-247 Year-2023 Thana- VIJAYEPUR District- Gopalganj
                 ======================================================
                 Dipu Kumar Gupta @ Deepu Kumar Gupta Son of Sugriv Gupta Resident of
                 Village- Ranipur, P.S.- Vijaipur, District- Gopalganj

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr.Aditya Kumar Pandey, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Mithlesh Kumar Khare, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   03-04-2026                    Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with

                   Vijaipur P.S. Case No.247 of 2023 lodged under Section 30(a)

                   of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 pending before the

                   Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge-IV -cum-

                   Special Judge Excise Court No.II, Gopalganj.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   bail application of the petitioner has earlier been allowed vide

                   order dated 07.11.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No.70885 of 2023

                   with condition that the petitioner be granted bail, but only after

                   framing of charge.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits

                   that on 27.01.2025, bail bond of the petitioner was cancelled
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18624 of 2026(2) dt.03-04-2026
                                                       2/2




                     due to his non-appearance and N.B.W. was issued and thereafter

                     on 05.02.2025, the proclamation against the petitioner was

                     issued. He further submits that the petitioner has surrendered

                     before the Lower Court on 17.02.2026 and thereafter, he is in

                     judicial custody.

                                  5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer

                     for bail.

                                  6. In the present facts and circumstances of this case

                     and the submissions made above, this Court is not inclined to

                     grant bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the bail application of the

                     petitioner is hereby rejected.

                                  7. However, liberty is hereby granted to the petitioner

                     to move before this Hon’ble Court for regular bail after two

                     month from today.



                                                              (Dr. Anshuman, J)
Prakashmani/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

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

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

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