Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Niraj Gupta @ Niraj SaoversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR

Decided
Disposal
BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to bond, sureties and statutory conditions.

Summary

The petitioners, Niraj Gupta and Thakur Ritesh Kumar, feared arrest in a 2019 case (PS 137) involving alleged assault and property damage, charged under IPC sections 341, 323, 308, 504 and 34. Although the offences were initially bailable, a charge‑sheet was filed in 2023 and their earlier anticipatory bail application was rejected. They filed a fresh anticipatory bail petition, arguing clean antecedents, cooperation with investigation, and that co‑accused Rajesh Kumar had been granted anticipatory bail in a similar matter (Cr. Misc. No.84853 of 2025). The State opposed the relief. The Court, noting the earlier order and the petitioners' willingness to cooperate, granted anticipatory bail subject to a Rs 10,000 bond, two sureties, and conditions under Section 438(2) CrPC/482(2) B.N.S.S., reserving the right to cancel bail if they delay the trial.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail despite the filing of a charge‑sheet and the nature of the offences.
  • Whether the earlier grant of anticipatory bail to a co‑accused influences the decision in the present petition.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • Indian Penal Code
  • Criminal Procedure Code
  • bailable offences
  • charge‑sheet
  • Patna High Court

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37894 of 2026
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-137 Year-2019 Thana- RUPASPUR District- Patna
                 ======================================================
           1.     Niraj Gupta @ Niraj Sao Son of Surendra Singh @ Surendra Sao Resident
                  of Village Rupaspur, Dhanaut, P.S. Rupaspur, Dist Patna
           2.     Thakur @ Ritesh Kumar Son of Shyam Nandan Sharama Resident of
                  Village - Near Government School Jhojhi, P.S.- Nagarnausa, Nalanda at
                  Present Village - Gola Road, More Rupaspur, P.S.- Rupaspur, District- Patna.
                                                                              ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
                 THE STATE OF BIHAR
                                                                       ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Dineshwar Pandey, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Bharat Lal, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   23-06-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

                   A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case

                   registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 308,

                   504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

                   petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant

                   alleges that on 11.03.2019 Niraj (petitioner no. 1), Rajesh and his

                   staff assaulted him by khanti and brick on account of which he

                   received injury on his shoulder and they also broke the glass of his

                   shop.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

                   initially when the FIR was instituted, the same was instituted under

                   Sections 341, 323, 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as such, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37894 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
                                            2/3




          offences were bailable but under wrong legal advice A.B.P. No. 2415

          of 2019 was filed by the petitioners and the same came to be rejected

          by an order dated 24.06.2019. It is further submitted that thereafter

          the police issued notice under Section 41A of the Cr.P.C. and the

          petitioners cooperated in the investigation, as such, the police never

          felt the need of arresting the petitioners but then charge-sheet came to

          be submitted under Sections 341, 323, 308 and 504 and 34 of the

          Indian Penal Code on 27.09.2023 thereafter cognizance was taken, as

          such, the petitioners apprehended their arrest, hence, filed the instant

          anticipatory bail application which came to be rejected and is

          impugned in the instant anticipatory bail application. It is next

          submitted that when the police, during the course of investigaiton,

          never made any efforts to arrest the petitioners, whether it would be

          prudent for the Court to send the petitioners to jail based on an order

          of cognizance. It is also submitted that similarly situated co-accused,

          namely, Rajesh Kumar had approached this Court seeking

          anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 84853 of 2025 and the same

          came to be allowed vide order dated 20.02.2026 passed by a learned

          Coordinate Bench of this Court. It is also submitted that if the

          privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, the

          petitioners will not abscond rather will cooperate in the investigation

          to prove their innocence.

                       5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the

          prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37894 of 2026(2) dt.23-06-2026
                                                       3/3




                                  6. Considering the submissions made by the learned

                     counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and taking into

                     consideration the order dated 20.02.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No.

                     84853 of 2025, let the petitioners, above-named, in the event of their

                     arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be

                     released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-

                     (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount

                     each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case is

                     pending/Successor Court in connection with Rupaspur P.S. Case No.

                     137 of 2019, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section

                     438(2) of the Cr.P.C./482(2) of the B.N.S.S.

                                  7. However, it is made clear that if the learned Trial Court

                     comes to a conclusion that petitioners, after their release on

                     anticipatory bail, are trying to delay the framing of charge or after

                     framing of charge are trying to delay the trial of the case in any

                     manner, the learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail

                     bonds of the petitioners.


                                                                          (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

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.