Patna High Court
Gholu @ Keshri NandanversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court denied bail, holding that the co-accused’s statement and the recovered weapon provide sufficient grounds to keep the petitioner in custody.
Summary
The petitioner, Gholu @ Keshri Nandan, was arrested in connection with the murder of a schoolboy allegedly abducted and shot by Raunak and Kanhaiya. The informant claims his son was taken to the Ganga bank, shot, and the body recovered. The petitioner is not named in the FIR; the prosecution’s case rests on a confessional statement of Kanhaiya that the petitioner supplied the firearm used, and on the recovery of the weapon from Kanhaiya’s house. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the informant is not an eyewitness, the FIR does not name the petitioner, and the confessional statement lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed bail, contending that the material links the petitioner to the offence. The court, after considering the submissions, refused to grant bail, holding that the existing material justified continued custody.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in light of the alleged involvement in the murder.
- Whether a co-accused’s confessional statement and indirect evidence are sufficient to deny bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s alleged supply of the firearm makes him a necessary party to the offence.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- arms act
- narcotic act
- confessional statement
- co-accused
- evidentiary value
- murder
- firearm
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2361 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-158 Year-2025 Thana- BARHIYA District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Gholu @ Keshri Nandan Son of Late Ram Sewak R/o Village - Chetan Tola,
Khutha, P.S - Barhiya, District - Lakhisarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shivam .
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Nawal Kishore Prasad
Mr.Samrendra Kumar Jha
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 21-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in Barhiya P. S. Case
No.158 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 103(1), 238, 61(2), (B), 3(5) of the B.N.S. and Sections
25(1-B)A, 26, 35, 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is in custody since 25.11.2025 and is a person with
clean antecedent and the informant alleges that his son a student
of Class-VIII, on 24.07.2025 had gone to school at 10.00 AM,
further Raunak and Kanhaiya forcibly took him to the bank of
river Ganga where Kanhaiya caught his son and Raunak shot
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2361 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
2/3
him on his forehead, when his son did not return home, a search
was made and thereafter the dead body was recovered.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is not named in the FIR. It is also submitted that
specific allegation of firing is against Raunak. It is next
submitted that informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence
nor has disclosed that on what basis he came to know that it
were Raunak and Kanhaiya who took his son on bank of river
Ganga and committed the occurrence of killing. It is further
submitted that name of the petitioner in the case transpired
based on the confessional statement of Kanhaiya in police
custody, which does not have any evidentiary value.
5. Learned A.P.P. as well as the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant opposes the bail
application. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant submits that what is not in dispute rather stands
admitted is that son of the informant was killed by firearm
injury. It is next submitted that FIR is not an encyclopedia, but
then, during the course of investigation material transpired
connecting Kanhaiya and Raunak with the offence and the
weapon was also recovered from the house of Kanhaiya and
Kanhaiya disclosed that it was petitioner who had provided the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2361 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
3/3
gun to Raunak based on which the occurrence was committed. It
is further submitted that a young boy aged about 14 years lost
his life for no fault of his and petitioner facilitated the
occurrence by providing gun to Raunak.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P. as well as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
informant, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on
bail.
7. The prayer of the petitioner for regular bail stands
rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…