Patna High Court
Gaurav Kumar @ Rishu RajversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted to any of the petitioners in the pending cases.
Summary
The Patna High Court considered bail applications filed by five petitioners—Abhishek Kumar, Nitin Kumar, Gaurav Kumar, Gautam Kumar, and another Gautam Kumar—who were charged under Sections 310(2) and 111(2) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 and, in one case, under Sections 25(1‑b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. The State argued that the offences involved looting of a gold showroom, that the petitioners were implicated through confessional statements of co‑accused, and that there was a risk of absconding or tampering with evidence. The petitioners contended that the allegations were merely preparatory, that confessional statements lack evidentiary value, and that the matters should be decided at trial. After hearing both sides, the Court found the seriousness of the offences and the risk factors sufficient to deny bail in each case. Consequently, all bail pleas were rejected, and the petitioners remain in custody pending trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in offences under Sections 310(2) and 111(2) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 and the Arms Act.
- Whether confessional statements of co‑accused can be the basis for denying bail.
- Whether the risk of absconding or tampering with evidence justifies refusal of bail.
- Whether the pending trial and examination of witnesses affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 35
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act — s. 111(2), 310(2)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- confessional statement
- arms act
- loot
- gold showroom
- serious offence
- risk of tampering
- antecedent
- trial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47624 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-171 Year-2025 Thana- ARA NAGAR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Abhishek Kumar S/o Sri Gajender Prasad Jaiswal R/o Village- Mahua Singh
Sarai, P.S.- Mahua, District- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 54135 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-171 Year-2025 Thana- ARA NAGAR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Nitin Kumar @ Nitin Pandey Son of Amrendra Kumar Pandey RO Village-
Sanchipatti Harauli PS -Sadar Hajipur District -Vaishali Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 58071 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-171 Year-2025 Thana- ARA NAGAR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Gaurav Kumar @ Rishu Raj Son of Late Sanjay Kumar Singh Resident of
village - Kalyanpur, P.S.- Sarai, District - Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 65672 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-171 Year-2025 Thana- ARA NAGAR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Gautam Kumar S/o Vinod Kumar Chaudhary @ Vinod Choudhary R/o
Village- Majhauli, P.S.- Vidupur, District- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47624 of 2025(4) dt.24-02-2026
2/9
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 75454 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-171 Year-2025 Thana- ARA NAGAR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Gautam Kumar Son of Shiv Chandra Chaudhary @ shiv Kumar Chaudhary
Resident of Village -Majhauli Bidpur PS -Bidpur District -Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 47624 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Ms.Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 54135 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anirudh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Kumar, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 58071 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shivanand Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 65672 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shivanand Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Fahimuddin, APP
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 75454 of 2025)
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shivanand Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
4 24-02-2026 Criminal Miscellaneous No.47624 of 2025
Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for
the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 310(2) and 111(2) of B.N.S.,
2023 as well as under Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms
Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47624 of 2025(4) dt.24-02-2026
3/9
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 30.03.2025
and has antecedent of one case under the Excise Act.
4. At this stage, learned APP for the State submits that
it is the case of committing loot in a gold show-room and during
the course of investigation, it transpired that petitioner had
purchased the looted gold article and had also melted the same
and gold biscuits were also seized from his house.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute
the said submission of the learned APP but then submits that
whether petitioner purchased the looted gold article or not is to
be tested in the trial and allegations are in realm of allegations.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is
hereby rejected in connection with Ara Town P.S. Case No.171
of 2025, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara.
Criminal Miscellaneous No.54135 of 2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47624 of 2025(4) dt.24-02-2026
4/9
offences punishable under Sections 310(2) and 111(2) of B.N.S.,
2023.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 31.03.2025
and has antecedents of three cases but then all the three cases
against the petitioner were dropped.
4. At this stage, learned APP for the State submits that
it is the case relating to committing loot in a gold show-room. It
is further submitted that petitioner is not named in the FIR and
during the course of investigation, based on confessional
statement of apprehended accused, the name of the petitioner
transpired. It is also submitted that off late loot in the State of
Bihar has become rampant and if privilege of bail is granted to
the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond or try to tamper with
the evidence.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute
the said submissions of the learned APP but then submits that
name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement
of apprehended accused in police custody which does not have
any evidentiary value and, whether petitioner was involved in
the occurrence or not, that is subject matter of trial.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47624 of 2025(4) dt.24-02-2026
5/9
Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is
hereby rejected in connection with Town (Ara) P.S. Case No.171
of 2025, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ara.
Criminal Miscellaneous No.58071 of 2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 310(2) and 111(2) of B.N.S.,
2023.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean
antecedent and is in custody since 30.03.2025.
4. At this stage, learned APP for the State submits that
the offence alleged in the FIR is serious as the same relates to
committing of loot in a gold shop. It is further submitted that
though FIR is against unknown but then name of the petitioner
transpired during the course of investigation in the confessional
statement of apprehended accused and even the car registered in
the name of the petitioner was also found to be involved in the
occurrence.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47624 of 2025(4) dt.24-02-2026
6/9
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute
the said submissions of the learned APP but then submits that
confessional statement of apprehended accused in police
custody does not have any evidentiary value. It is also submitted
that no doubt the car of the petitioner has been seized with an
allegation that the same was involved in the occurrence but then
the car was purchased on loan and the same was taken by
Manish Rai, whose involvement transpired during the course of
investigation, hence petitioner came to be implicated
subsequently.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
Court is not inclined to released the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is
hereby rejected in connection with Ara Town P.S. Case No.171
of 2025, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ara.
Criminal Miscellaneous No.65672 of 2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 310(2) and 111(2) of B.N.S.,
2023.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47624 of 2025(4) dt.24-02-2026
7/9
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that at the time of filing of the instant bail
application, the petitioner was a person with clean antecedent
but subsequently the petitioner came to be implicated in one
case, as such, the petitioner has antecedent of one case and is in
custody since 15.03.2025.
4. At this stage, learned APP for the State submits that
allegations are serious as the case is of committing loot in a gold
show-room. It is further submitted that no doubt FIR was
against unknown but then during the course of investigation, the
name of the petitioner also transpired. It is next submitted that
petitioner before the police confessed that he was waiting with
his car at Vaishali for the accused persons to come after
committing the occurrence. It is also submitted that charges
have been framed and trial has commenced on which the
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no doubt trial has
commenced and 5-6 witnesses have been examined but still
more than 18 witnesses are yet to be examined.
5. Since trial has commenced and witnesses are being
examined, as such, the Court is not inclined to release the
petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the
petitioner is hereby rejected in connection with Ara Town P.S.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47624 of 2025(4) dt.24-02-2026
8/9
Case No.171 of 2025, pending in the court of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ara.
Criminal Miscellaneous No.75454 of 2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 310(2) and 111(2) of B.N.S.,
2023.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody since 15.06.2025
and at the time of filing of the instant bail application, the
petitioner was a person with clean antecedent but subsequently
the petitioner came to be implicated in one case, as such, the
petitioner has antecedent of one case.
4. At this stage, learned APP for the State submits that
allegations are serious as the case is with respect to committing
loot in a gold show-room. It is further submitted that no doubt
FIR was against unknown but then name of the petitioner
transpired in the confessional statement of apprehended
accused, namely, Gautam Kumar. It is further submitted that
name of the instant petitioner is identical to the name of
petitioner of Criminal Miscellaneous No.65672 of 2025
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47624 of 2025(4) dt.24-02-2026
9/9
(Gautam Kumar). It is also submitted that regular bail
application of Gautam Kumar was rejected by an order dated
24.02.2026 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.65672 of 2025.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner does not dispute the said submissions but then the
difference between the case of this petitioner and petitioner of
Criminal Miscellaneous No.65672 of 2025 is that in the case of
petitioner, the charges till date has not been framed on which the
learned APP submits that if charges are framed and the
petitioner is released on bail, the petitioner may abscond or try
to tamper with the evidence.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the
Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner is
hereby rejected in connection with Ara Town P.S. Case No.171
of 2025, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Ara.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.