Patna High Court
Dewa GuptaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, directing his release on bond with conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Dewa Gupta, a politician, filed an anticipatory bail petition after being implicated as a financier of nine co-accused in a murder case (Town P.S. Case No. 734 of 2025) despite not being named in the FIR. The FIR alleged that the co-accused killed a youth during a Mahaviri Jhanda procession, and two later witnesses identified Gupta as a conspirator. Gupta argued that the allegations were politically motivated, noting his recent electoral defeat and his wife's position as mayor, and highlighted that he had been acquitted in several similar cases. The State opposed the bail, but the court observed that the original eye‑witness did not mention Gupta and that there was no cogent material linking him to the crime. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, with conditions under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the petitioner is not named in the FIR but is later implicated by witnesses.
- Whether political rivalry and lack of substantive evidence justify granting bail.
- Whether the conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 482(2) B.N.S.S. are applicable.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103(1), 121, 121(1), 122, 61(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- political rivalry
- FIR
- Section 438
- Section 482
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita
- murder
- financier
- witness testimony
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84662 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-734 Year-2025 Thana- MOTIHARI TOWN District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Dewa Gupta S/o- Hari Kishore Gupta R/V- Ward No- 18 Barhai Tola PS-
Chhatuni Dist-East Champaran
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nilanjan Chatterjee, Advocate
Mr.Anuj Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Arun Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
5 09-06-2026 The present petition of anticipatory bail was taken up on
board upon mentioning during vacation as this case is pending
since December 2025.
2. Heard Mr. Nilanjan Chatterjee, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
3. The accused-petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., and
apprehending his arrest in connection with Town P.S. Case No.
734 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 121, 122, 103(1), 61(2), 121(1) of the Bhartiya Nyay
Sanhita, 2023 (in short, the ‘B.N.S.’).
4. As per FIR, the informant who claims to be an eye
witness of the occurrence alleged that his son, while
participating in “Mahaviri Jhanda procession”, was killed by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84662 of 2025(5) dt.09-06-2026
2/4
nine named co-accused persons by using knife and Lathi.
5. Mr. Nilanjan Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner submitted that upon facial perusal of the
FIR, it can be gathered safely that the informant is an eye
witness of the occurrence, who raised specific allegation against
nine (9) named co-accused persons as to commit murder of his
son. Admittedly, as per FIR, the petitioner was not present
during occurrence.
6. It is submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that during the
course of investigation, after passing of 27 days, two witnesses
namely, Deepak Kumar and Sanjeet Patel named this petitioner
suggesting his involvement with the present crime in question as
a financier of the named co-accused persons.
7. Submitting further, it is pointed out by learned
counsel that petitioner is a politician who contested assembly
election of Bihar in year 2025, on ticket of a national political
party and had lost the election with a margin of 12 thousand
votes only. The wife of petitioner is also the Mayor of Motihari
Municipal Corporation. It is pointed out that above-named two
persons are admittedly in inimical terms with his wife and,
therefore, getting the occurrence as an opportunity, implicated
this petitioner with the present crime in question with very
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84662 of 2025(5) dt.09-06-2026
3/4
vague allegation that petitioner was also one of the conspirator
being financier of the named co-accused persons without having
any cogent materials in support of the allegation to settle
political rivalry.
8. It is further submitted that named co-accused persons
who said to be involved in actual commission of crime have
already been granted regular bail by different learned coordinate
Bench of this Court through Cr. Misc. No. 82789 of 2025; Cr.
Misc. No. 83650 of 2025.
9. Arguing further, it is submitted by Mr. Chatterjee that
petitioner was implicated almost with 30 cases out of political
rivalry, where almost in nine (9) cases, he has already been
acquitted, and in most of these cases he was implicated as an
afterthought like the present matter where he was not named in
the FIR due to political rivalry.
10. In this connection, it is further submitted that
ordinarily prayer of bail of the petitioner should not be rejected
on the ground of criminal antecedents alone, if merits of the
case otherwise convincing in favour of the accused/petitioner. In
support of his submission, Mr. Chatterjee, learned counsel relied
upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available
through Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and Another
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84662 of 2025(5) dt.09-06-2026
4/4
reported in (2020) 11 SCC 648.
11. Learned A.P.P. Incharge for the State opposes the
prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
12. In view of the aforesaid factual submissions and by
taking note of the fact as the informant, who claims to be an eye
witness of the occurrence, could not named this petitioner or
even raised any suspicion qua his involvement with the present
crime in question, accordingly, above-named petitioner, in the
event of his arrest/surrender within a period of four weeks from
this order, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing of bail
bond of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Incharge Chief
Judicial Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari/concerned
court in connection with Town P.S. Case No. 734 of 2025,
subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of
the Cr.P.C/Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita (in short “B.N.S.S.”).
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.