Patna High Court
Nikhil Goyal @ Nikhil Kumar GoelversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
Bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Nikhil Goyal, was charged with murder under Sections 103(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 27 of the Arms Act for the killing of Awadhesh Agrawal. He sought regular bail after his earlier bail petition was rejected, arguing that there were no eyewitnesses and that the case relied only on confessional statements of co‑accused and himself. The State opposed bail, contending that the petitioner orchestrated the murder, provided the vehicle used, paid Rs 20 lakh to the shooters, and that the trial was already at an advanced stage with several witnesses examined. Citing a Supreme Court pronouncement that courts should be loath to grant bail in serious offences once trial has commenced, the High Court refused bail, allowing the petitioner to re‑apply after six months and directing the trial court to conclude the trial within that period. The bail petition was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted to an accused in a murder case at the present stage of trial.
- Whether the existence of only confessional statements and lack of eyewitnesses justifies granting bail.
- Whether the Supreme Court’s guideline on bail in serious offences applies to the present case.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 103(1), 3(5), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- murder
- confessional statement
- Arms Act
- serious offence
- trial stage
- business rivalry
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84647 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-738 Year-2024 Thana- PIRBAHOR District- Patna
======================================================
Nikhil Goyal @ Nikhil Kumar Goel Son of Haribabu Goyal Resident of
Village - Mathura Govind Nagar Vidya Colony, P.S. - Govind Nagar, District -
Mathura, Uttar Pradesh.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shivanand Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Naresh Ray, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
CAV ORDER
5 13-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1),
61(2) & 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short ‘B.N.S.’)
and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that earlier the bail petition of this petitioner was rejected vide
order dated 16.07.2025 passed by learned Co-ordinate Bench in
Cr. Misc. No. 17048 of 2025.
4. The case of the prosecution in short is that on
27.10.2024 the deceased (Awadhesh Agrawal) went to his rental
room near Imambara, Churi Gali, Patna to take meal. In the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84647 of 2025(5) dt.13-03-2026
2/4
meantime, unknown miscreants entered in his room and shot the
informant’s maternal uncle (deceased). Thereafter, he was taken
to Paras Hospital for treatment where the Doctors declared him
dead.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that similarly situated co-accused Neeraj Gautam has been
granted bail by the learned Co-ordinate Bench vide Cr. Misc.
No. 49195 of 2025 and one Braj Gopal by this Court vide Cr.
Misc. No. 87890 of 2025. It has been submitted that the case of
this petitioner stands on better footing. It has further been
submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that from
perusal of the FIR it is clear that there is no eye-witness of this
case. During course of investigation, the name of this petitioner
has surfaced in the confessional statement of co-accused Neeraj
Gautam, Brij Bhushan Dixit and Jitendra Kumar and the
petitioner has himself given his confessional statement. It has
further been submitted that there is nothing except suspicion and
confessional statements of co-accused and this petitioner.
Petitioner is in custody since 30.11.2024.
6. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the bail petition of the petitioner. It has been submitted that this
petitioner had purchased a vehicle from registered owner about
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84647 of 2025(5) dt.13-03-2026
3/4
five years ago which was used by the shooters at the relevant
time for traveling from Mathura to Patna. It has further been
submitted that confessional statement of the co-accused Neeraj
Gautam and the petitioner goes to show that the petitioner
wanted to get the deceased murdered as there was business
rivalry between the petitioner and the deceased. On the
instruction of this petitioner, the shooters were arranged and
they have murdered the deceased. Learned APP for the State has
further submitted that all the conspiracies and the arrangements
for the murder were made by this petitioner which is apparent
from the confessional statement of this petitioner and that this
petitioner has paid Rupees Twenty Lakh to the shooters. It has
further been submitted that a report was also called from the
learned trial court regarding stage of trial and from perusal of
the same, it is clear that out of the seven witnesses, four have
already been examined in the trial court. Learned APP for the
Stated has further submitted that the trial is at advance stage.
7. Since, it is a case of murder and the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held in the case of X Vs. State of Rajasthan
& Anr passed in SLP(Criminal) No. 13378 of 2024 wherein in
para- ‘14’, Hon’ble Apex Court has held which is being quoted
hereunder:-
14. Ordinarily in serious offences like rape,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84647 of 2025(5) dt.13-03-2026
4/4
murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial
commences and the prosecution starts
examining its witnesses, the Court be it the
Trial Court or the High Court should be loath
in entertaining the bail application of the
accused.
8. Considering the above facts and circumstances of
the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this
stage, however, he may renew his prayer for bail after six
months if the trial is not concluded.
9. Learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial
within the said period positively.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 13.03.2026
Transmission Date 13.03.2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.