Patna High Court
Gaurav Kumar @ Gaurav Kumar Singh @ Gaurav SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Gaurav Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a FIR alleging firing of firearms that injured two persons and the alleged theft of a motorcycle, with offences under Sections 109(1), 303(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The petitioner argued that the FIR was false, stemming from a land dispute, and that the informant did not specify who fired the shots. The State highlighted the petitioner’s prior case, the seriousness of the alleged firearm injuries, and the presence of unknown accused, contending that bail would impede investigation. The Court examined the seriousness of the allegations, the presence of a dangerous weapon, and the lack of a clear identification of the shooter. Concluding that the case was not suitable for anticipatory bail, the Court rejected the petitioner's application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the alleged offences involving firearms and injury.
- Whether the lack of specific identification of the shooter and the existence of a land dispute affect the grant of anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s antecedent case influences the decision on bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita — s. 109(1), 303(2), 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- firearm injury
- land dispute
- criminal procedure
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita
- Arms Act
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41876 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-168 Year-2026 Thana- GOPALPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Gaurav Kumar @ Gaurav Kumar Singh @ Gaurav Singh S/o Uday Singh R/o
Village - Bairiya Karnpura, Sampatchak, P.S - Gopalpur, District - Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 25-06-2026 1. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Rajendra Narain and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1),
303(2), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita and 27 of the Arms
Act.
3. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case and
the informant alleges that on 06.04.2026 at about 09:00 a.m. he
along with sons Avinash and Amit and neighbour Jitendra had
gone to inspect on going construction work were being carried
out on his plot at Mouza Pahari, further at 10:00 a.m. when they
were returning from the plot, accused Uday along with his sons
Gaurav and Ujjwal and four unknown accused started
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41876 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026
2/3
indiscriminate firing from a distance of 30 metres, causing
firearm injury on thigh of informant and Jitendra suffered fire
arm injury on his stomach, while petitioner took away the
motorcycle of Jitendra.
4. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in
the instant case by the informant, it is next submitted that from
perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest
that though informant alleges that he received firearm injury
along with Jitendra, but then does not specifically alleged who
fired, it is next submitted that the case is to be appreciated in
backdrop of a land dispute, it is next submitted that the land on
which the petitioner claims to have gone for seeing the ongoing
construction was purchased by Uday on 30.03.2026 in the name
of his wife from Urmila Devi, as such, there was no occasion for
the petitioner and his family members to indulge in such an
occurrence when the land in dispute in the instance case was
purchased in the name of his mother prior to the occurrence.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes
the anticipatory bail application and submits that petitioner has
antecedent of one case, it is next submitted no doubt specific
allegation of firing is not alleged, but then what is not in dispute
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41876 of 2026(2) dt.25-06-2026
3/3
rather stands admitted from the allegation and the injury report
annexed with the anticipatory bail application is that two
persons suffered firearm injury though the injury has been
opined to be simple in nature, but then firearm is a dangerous
weapon and since two persons have suffered fire arm injury and
allegation is against the accused persons named in the FIR along
with unknown accused of firing and investigation is continuing,
as such, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail
application stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Nitesh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.