Patna High Court
Gopal Choudhary@Gopal Kr Choudhary@Pranav Choudhary@Gopal Kr Chaudhary@Pranav Chaudhary@Lalu @ LalluversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The court upheld its earlier decision and denied bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case registered under Sections 392 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging innocence despite being caught committing loot at a CSP centre and having twelve prior serious criminal cases. The prosecution presented that the looted articles and cash were recovered from the petitioner, indicating his involvement in the offence. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the charges had been framed and that bail should be granted, while the State highlighted the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and the gravity of the offence. The court, noting that the petitioner was apprehended in the act, his extensive criminal record, and that the trial had already commenced, declined to revisit its earlier order denying bail. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed, and the Superintendent of Police was directed to ensure witness attendance to avoid trial delays.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused caught in the act of robbery and dishonest misappropriation under Sections 392 and 411 IPC, considering his prior serious criminal antecedents.
- Whether the commencement of trial and the gravity of the offence preclude the grant of bail.
- Whether the court should review its earlier order denying bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 392, 411
Subjects
- bail
- robbery
- IPC
- criminal antecedents
- trial commencement
- witness attendance
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67239 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-409 Year-2023 Thana- UJIYARPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
Gopal Choudhary@Gopal Kr Choudhary@Pranav Choudhary@Gopal Kr
Chaudhary@Pranav Chaudhary@Lalu @ Lallu Son of Manoj Kumar
Chaudhary @ Manoj Choudhary Resident of village - Piparpati Kewta, Police
Station - Dalsinghsarai, District - Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Mahendra Pratap, Advocate
For the State : Mr.Bharat Bhushan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 10-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Ujiyarpur P.S.
Case No. 409 of 2023, lodged under Sections 392 and 411 of the
I.P.C.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has
been rejected vide order dated 18.09.2024 passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 54337 of 2024, which reads as under:
“Heard learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67239 of 2025(3) dt.10-02-2026
2/3
petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in
connection with Ujiyarpur P.S. Case No. 409 of
2023, lodged under Sections 392 and 411 of the
I.P.C.
3. As per the prosecution case, the
petitioner was caught while committing the loot
in C.S.P. Centre. The looted articles and cash
have been recovered from the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is innocent and has
committed no offence. The petitioner is in
custody since 01.11.2023 having twelve criminal
cases pending against him, which is of similar
and serious nature.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes
the prayer for bail and submits that there are in
total twelve criminal antecedents of the
petitioner of serious offences.
6. Considering the fact that the
petitioner was caught raid handed committing
the loot and his criminal antecedents, I am not
inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and
therefore, the present bail application is hereby
rejected.”
4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the
petitioner that the charges have been framed.
5. Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact
that the trial has started, I am not inclined to review my earlier
order.
6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
7. The Superintendent of Police, Samastipur is
directed to ensure the appearance of the witnesses in the trial so
that the trial is not delayed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67239 of 2025(3) dt.10-02-2026
3/3
8. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
Superintendent of Police, Samastipur forthwith through FAX or
e-mail for its compliance.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
P. Kumar
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.