Patna High Court
Guddu Kumar @ Guddu Kumar SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the petitioner’s alleged involvement and prior similar offence warranted refusal of relief.
Summary
Guddu Kumar Sharma, the petitioner, was not named in the FIR but was implicated through a co-accused's confessional statement in a theft and vehicle‑tampering case (IPC §§420, 406, 379, 467, 468, 411/34). He claimed he merely rented a garage from Pintu Singh/Chandramani Ray and had no documentary proof linking him to the stolen truck. The State argued that the truck was recovered from his garage and that he was the garage owner, also noting a similar pending case against him. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, but the court found the allegations and prior similar conduct sufficient to deny relief. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under CrPC Section 438 given the allegations of theft and vehicle tampering.
- Whether the lack of documentary evidence and the existence of a similar pending case justify denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 437, 438
- Indian Penal Code — s. 34, 379, 406, 411, 420, 467, 468
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Indian Penal Code
- theft
- vehicle tampering
- bail jurisprudence
- pre‑trial detention
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42960 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2024 Thana- AKBARPUR District- Nawada
======================================================
Guddu Kumar @ Guddu Kumar Sharma Son Of Gogendra Sharma
Resident Of Ward No-.6, Near Shiv Mandir, Daud Nagar, P.S.- Bidupur,
District- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ranjit Kumar Thakur, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Pranav Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
5 02-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP
for the State.
2. The accused-petitioner, not named in the F.I.R., is
apprehending his arrest in connection with Akhbarpur P.S. Case
No. 03 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 406, 379 of the Indian Penal Code and later on
section 467, 468, 411/34 of the I.P.C. was added.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is to involve in
theft and also tampering of description of the vehicle/Truck.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that name of the petitioner transpired during course
of investigation on the basis of confessional statement of co-
accused Ranjeet Kumar. It is pointed out that the garage in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42960 of 2024(5) dt.02-02-2026
2/2
issue belongs to one Pintu Singh @ Chandramani Ray, however,
it is fairly conceded by learned counsel that there is no any
documentary evidence in support of the submission.
5. While concluding argument, learned counsel
submitted that petitioner found involve in one more case of
similar nature wherein he is on bail.
6. Taking note of the aforesaid submission, learned
A.P.P. for the State submitted that petitioner was the owner of
the garage from where the stolen Truck was said to be
recovered. It is submitted that land of the garage was in the
name of Pintu Singh @ Chandramani Ray, which was taken on
rent by this petitioner for running the garage.
7. In view of the aforesaid factual submissions and by
taking note of the fact as alleged stolen Truck was said to be
recovered from garage of the petitioner and also petitioner
involved in similar nature of offence, accordingly, prayer of
anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U T
Checking your session…