Patna High Court
Hari Narayan GuptaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the petitioner was implicated in serious offences, material evidence supported the charge, and his prior criminal antecedents warranted refusal of bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Hari Narayan Gupta, sought anticipatory bail after learning that he might be arrested in a case alleging his participation in a conspiracy to fire upon Keshav Kumar, resulting in four gunshot injuries. The prosecution alleged that Gupta was part of a gang that committed the offence punishable under IPC Sections 307, 34, 120B and Arms Act Section 27. Gupta contended that his name was only added nine years after the incident, based solely on the victim’s statement, with no corroborating material or independent witnesses, and argued that the addition violated Section 173(8) of the CrPC. The State opposed bail, highlighting the seriousness of the charges and Gupta’s four prior criminal antecedents. The court examined the gravity of the offence, the existence of material evidence, and the petitioner’s criminal history. Consequently, the court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the nature of the alleged offences and the evidence on record.
- Whether the addition of the petitioner as an accused under Section 173(8) of the CrPC is valid.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents justify denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 173(8)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 307, 34
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal conspiracy
- attempt to murder
- Arms Act
- Section 173(8)
- bail jurisprudence
- criminal antecedents
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8684 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-422 Year-2016 Thana- MOTIHARI TOWN District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Hari Narayan Gupta S/o Late Ramchandra Gupta R/o Ram Chandra Nagar,
ward No. 11, Chhatauni Bazar, P.S- Chhatauni Motihari, District- East
Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ujjwal Raj, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Dilip Kumar No. 1, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 34 and
120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that this
petitioner, in conspiracy with other associates, fired on one
Keshav Kumar as a result of which he sustained four gun shot
injuries.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
committed no offence. Petitioner was never summoned or called
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8684 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026
2/3
in connection with the present case and his name surfaced on
16.09.2025, i.e. nine years after commission of the alleged
offence and three years after submission of the charge-sheet,
only on the basis of statement of injured Keshav Kumar who
stated that this petitioner is member of a gang which
orchestrated the attack. However, in investigation, police did not
find any material in support of statement of injured Keshav
Kumar and hence, implication of this petitioner as an additional
accused is wholly unjustified and is not supported by any of the
independent witnesses. Moreover, three charge-sheets have been
filed in the instant case and the allegation of conspiracy was
made way back in the year 2016 itself, however, the police
never investigated against this petitioner and the same shows
gross misuse of provisions under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C..
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner and submitted that name of petitioner surfaced in
this case during investigation the basis of statement of injured
Keshav Kumar who has disclosed that this petitioner is member
of the gang which fired upon him. Petitioner has got four
criminal antecedents.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8684 of 2026(2) dt.23-02-2026
3/3
case, gravity of offence, material available on record and
criminal antecedents of the petitioner, the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…