Patna High Court

Golu Kumar @ Golo @ Golu @ Kundan Kumar @ Kundan Kumar Bharti @ Gola KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 25 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

Bail was denied to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Golu Kumar, was charged under Sections 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly firing a weapon that injured Pankaj Kumar. He has nine prior criminal cases and has been in custody since 12 March 2025. The petitioner sought regular bail, arguing that the FIR does not specify which of the three accused actually fired the weapon. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the petitioner’s criminal antecedents and the risk of absconding or tampering with evidence. After hearing both sides, the Court held that the petitioner’s history and the seriousness of the offences warranted denial of bail. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner given his antecedent criminal record and the nature of the offences.
Whether the risk of absconding or tampering with evidence justifies denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27
Indian Penal Code — s. 307, 34

Subjects

bail
attempt to murder
common intention
arms act
criminal antecedent
evidence tampering
custody

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70549 of 2025
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-107 Year-2023 Thana- BAKHTIYARPUR District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Golu Kumar @ Golo @ Golu @ Kundan Kumar @ Kundan Kumar Bharti @
                 Gola Kumar S/o Radheyshyam @ Radheyshyam Rai R/o Village -
                 Ghoshwari, P.S - Bakhatiyarpur, District - Patna.
                                                                          ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                   ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Ms. Usha Kumari Singh, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Md. Nazir Ansari, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   25-02-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P.

                   for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   informant.

                                2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the

                   offences punishable under Sections 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal

                   Code as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act.

                                3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

                   submits that petitioner has antecedent of nine cases and is in custody

                   since 12.03.2025 and in sum and substance, the allegation is that this

                   petitioner along with Gulsan Kumar and Rana Randhir fired causing

                   firearm injury to Pankaj Kumar @ Raju Kumar.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from

                   perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that

                   three persons are alleged to have fired causing firearm injury to

                   Pankaj Kumar @ Raju Kumar but then allegation of firing is not
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70549 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026
                                                       2/2




                     specific on which learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                     petitioner submits that three accused are alleged to have fired on

                     Pankaj Kumar @ Raju Kumar and Pankaj Kumar @ Raju Kumar

                     suffered three firearm injuries.

                                  5. At this stage, learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently

                     opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submits that

                     merely because petitioner is in custody since 12.03.2025 that should

                     not be the sole criteria for considering his bail, rather his criminal

                     antecedent also is to be taken into consideration. It is further

                     submitted that if privilege of regular bail is granted to the petitioner,

                     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 in connection

                     with Bakhatiyarpur P.S. Case No. 107 of 2023 pending in the Court

                     of   learned     Additional      Chief     Judical    Magistrate-III,   Barh,

                     Patna/Successor Court.

                                  7. Hence, the prayer for bail is rejected.


                                                                          (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…