Golu Tiwari @ Gaurav Nath TiwariversusThe State of Bihar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40784 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-92 Year-2026 Thana- GUTHANI District- Siwan
                 ======================================================
                 Golu Tiwari @ Gaurav Nath Tiwari Son of Shambu Tiwari Resident of
                 Village - Chakiya, P.S.- Guthni, Dist.- Siwan
                                                                      ... ... Petitioner
                                                     Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                               ... ... Opposite Party
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s    :        Mr.N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate
                                                  Mr.Adarsh Tiwari, Advocate
                                                  Mr.Tejas Vatsa, Advocate
                 For the State           :        Mr.Navin Kumar Pandey, Advocate
                 For the Informant       :        Mr.Ajay Kr. Thakur, Advocate
                                                  Ms.Kumari Anupam, Advocate
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   07-07-2026               Heard Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel for the

                   petitioner, Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the

                   informant and learned A.P.P. for the State.

                             2. The accused-petitioner, named in the F.I.R., is

                   apprehending his arrest in connection with Guthni P.S. Case No.

                   92 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections

                   126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109, 61(2) & 3(5) of the

                   Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (in short, the ‘B.N.S.’) and Section

                   27 of the Arms Act.

                             3. As per FIR, informant alleged that petitioner

                   alongwith other named co-accused persons resorted firing upon

                   him while he was returning to his home. It is alleged that the

                   occurrence took place in the background of local political
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40784 of 2026(3) dt.07-07-2026
                                            2/3




          rivalry.

                     4. Mr. N.K. Agrawal, learned senior counsel appearing

          on behalf of the petitioner submitted that allegation of firing is

          not available against this petitioner and if, face of the FIR be

          taken into consideration, then, it makes the identification of

          petitioner improbable, for the reason that it was claimed to

          identify the petitioner in the headlight of motorcycle, whereas it

          is specifically alleged that firing was made from behind.

                     5. It is submitted by Mr. Agrawal that both aspects are

          contrary to each other. It is also pointed out that in the

          background of indiscriminate firing from very close range by all

          accused persons, only one fire-arm injury was found upon the

          informant, which also makes the allegation false on its face.

          Explaining criminal antecedent, it is submitted that petitioner

          found involved in nine more criminal cases, where he is on bail

          in seven (7) criminal cases.

                     6. Learned A.P.P. for the State is present.

                     7. Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the

          informant, while opposing the prayer of anticipatory bail of the

          petitioner, submitted that petitioner was named in the FIR and

          was also one amongst accused persons, who opened firing upon

          the informant. It is submitted that admittedly, the injury report
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40784 of 2026(3) dt.07-07-2026
                                                       3/3




                     suggest that the informant received gunshot injury on his

                     abdomen causing penetrative fire-arm wound, damaging his

                     vital parts of the body. It is submitted by Mr. Thakur that the

                     allegation of firing is available against this petitioner, which in

                     itself is sufficient to gather that petitioner was also under

                     intention to cause death of the informant and, therefore, it is

                     hardly matter whether firing made by petitioner in actual hit to

                     the informant or not.

                              8.    In view of aforesaid factual submissions and by

                     taking note of the fact as the petitioner specifically alleged to

                     open firing upon the informant alongwith other co-accused

                     persons, where the injury report categorically suggest that the

                     gunshot was made on the abdomen of the informant causing

                     penetrative wound damaging other internal vital parts of the

                     body, accordingly, the prayer of anticipatory bail of the

                     petitioner stands rejected.


                                                                   (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-

U      T