Patna High Court

Guddu KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 30 March 2026
Disposal: REJECTED
Bench: RAJESH KUMAR VERMA

Holding

The court held that bail could not be granted and refused the petitioner's prayer for bail.

Summary

Guddu Kumar, arrested on 31-01-2025, sought bail in a murder case (Sections 302/34 IPC) alleging he fired a gun that killed the son of an informant on 10-02-2017. The petitioner contended that the FIR was fabricated, delayed by a day, and that he was not present at the scene. The State argued that the FIR contained a specific allegation supported by medical evidence and that the petitioner had been an absconder since 2017. The court examined the material, noting the seriousness of the charge and the alleged absconding, and found no sufficient ground to grant bail. Consequently, the bail petition was refused.

Issues considered

Whether bail should be granted to an accused in a murder case under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC despite alleged FIR delay and claims of fabrication
Whether the alleged status of the accused as an absconder justifies denial of bail

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34

Subjects

bail
murder
IPC 302
IPC 34
FIR delay
absconding
criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85247 of 2025
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-17 Year-2017 Thana- RAJAPAKAR District- Vaishali
                 ======================================================
                 Guddu Kumar S/O Ram Prasad Rai Resident of Village - Govindpur,
                 Jhakhrahan, P.S- Rajapakar, District- Vaishali

                                                                                   ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Syed Faizan Mehdi, Advocate
                                          :       Mr.Shivanand Singh, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr.Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   30-03-2026                    Heard Mr. Syed Faizan Mehdi, learned counsel for

                   the petitioner and Mr.Ram Priya Sharan Singh, learned

                   Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

                                 2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since

                   31.01.2025 in connection with S.Tr.No.92 of 2020 arising out of

                   Rajapakar P.S. Case No. 17 of 2017, F.I.R. dated 11.02.2017

                   registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of

                   IPC.

                                 3. As per FIR, there is a specific allegation against the

                   petitioner for gun firing to the son of informant due to which he

                   died on the spot.

                                 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85247 of 2025(5) dt.30-03-2026
                                            2/3




          petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR.

          From a bare perusal of the FIR it appears that the date of

          occurrence as alleged in the FIR is 10.02.2017 at about 11.00

          AM but the present FIR has been instituted on 11.02.2017 at

          about 6.00 AM after delay of one day without giving any

          explanation of delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

          that merely on the basis of suspicion the petitioner has been

          made accused in the present case. In fact the petitioner was not

          present at the place of occurrence.

                       5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, on the basis of the

          material available on the record and the case diary, has

          vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and

          submits that from a bare perusal of the FIR it appears that there

          is direct and specific allegation of firing attributed against the

          petitioner which is supported by the medical evidence

          (postmortem report) and apart from the aforesaid, the petitioner

          has been made accused in the present case and he was

          absconder since 2017.

                       6. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am not inclined

          to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with S.Tr.No.92

          of 2020 arising out of Rajapakar P.S. Case No. 17 of 2017,

          pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge IV,
               Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85247 of 2025(5) dt.30-03-2026
                                                           3/3




                         Vaishali at Hajipur.

                                      7. Prayer is refused.



                                                (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-

U          T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…