Patna High Court
Guddu Sahni @ Guddu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to bail, subject to a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and specified conditions.
Summary
Guddu Sahni, accused of offences under IPC sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120(B) and several provisions of the Arms Act, has been in custody since 21‑02‑2024 for a shooting incident that resulted in two deaths. This is his third application for bail; earlier anticipatory bail and regular bail were denied. The petitioner claims a clean antecedent and alleges that the FIR is fabricated, noting that co‑accused have already been released on bail and that the charge was only framed on 18‑10‑2024 with no witnesses appearing in trial. The trial court report indicated that the trial is unlikely to conclude soon. Considering the petitioner’s clean record, the delay in trial, and the bail granted to co‑accused, the High Court granted bail on a Rs 10,000 bond with two sureties and imposed conditions regarding court attendance, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused of murder and related offences despite prior bail rejections.
- Whether the delay in trial and absence of witnesses justify granting bail.
- Whether the clean antecedent of the petitioner and bail granted to co‑accused influence the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 27, 35
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 147, 148, 149, 302
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- IPC
- murder
- arms act
- trial delay
- co-accused
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45333 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-72 Year-2022 Thana- SAHEBGANJ District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Guddu Sahni @ Guddu Kumar S/o Bhageshwar Sahni R/o Vill- Nirpur, PS-
Sahebganj, Distt. - Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Upendra Kumar Chaubey, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 16-03-2026 Heard Mr. Upendra Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned APP for
the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
21.02.2024 in connection with Sessions Trial No. 567 of 2024,
Sahebganj P.S. Case No. 72 of 2022, F.I.R. dated 0303.2022, for
the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302,
120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 27
and 35 of the Arms Act.
3. As per prosecution case, informant along with his
father and others were fishing in the pond then the petitioner
and other accused persons armed with deadly weapons came
and started firing indiscriminately due to which they sustained
injuries and they were brought to the hospital where two of
them were found dead.
4. This is the third attempt for grant of bail to the
petitioner. Earlier, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45333 of 2025(4) dt.16-03-2026
2/4
petitioner was rejected vide order dated 31.07.2023 passed in
Cr. Misc. No. 37842/2023 and regular bail of the petitioner was
rejected vide order 10.01.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 44776 of
2024.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the
FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed
any offence as alleged in the FIR. As per allegation in FIR,
petitioner along with other co-accused persons, namely,
Shivshankar Sah, Sanjay Singh, Manish Singh, Rampukar
Thakur have fired upon the victim, namely, Mukesh Sahni and
he has died. Learned counsel further submits that although
Mukesh Sahni has received four firearms injury but the
allegation against five persons is not clear that whose bullet has
touched the body of the deceased, namely, Mukesh Sahni and
the co-accused, namely, Manish Kumar and Sanjay Kumar @
Sanjay Singh against whom the allegation is that they had also
fired upon the deceased, have been granted regular bail by a
coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide order dated
24.07.2023 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 39877 of 2023 and vide
order dated 04.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 87869 of 2024
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45333 of 2025(4) dt.16-03-2026
3/4
and despite this, petitioner is in custody since 21.02.2024 and
charge has not been framed as yet.
6. Vide order dated 02.02.2026, a report was called
with regard to the stage of trial. Report dated 20.02.2026 of the
trial court reveals that charge has been framed against the
petitioner on 18.10.2024 and after issuance of summons/NBW
against the witnesses, till date no witnesses has turned up in the
trial (Sessions Trial No. 567 of 2024).
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that
in view of the report of the learned Trial Court, the trial is not
concluded in near future and the petitioner is in custody since
21.02.2024.
8. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail.
9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and also the fact that the petitioner has clean antecedent, trial is
not concluded in the near future and the co-accused persons
have been granted regular bail by a coordinate Bench of this
Hon’ble Court, let the petitioner, above named, be released on
bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand)
with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 20th Muzaffarpur, in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45333 of 2025(4) dt.16-03-2026
4/4
connection with Sessions Trial No. 567 of 2024, Sahebganj P.S.
Case No. 72 of 2022, with the following conditions:
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Ranjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…