Patna High Court
Guddu Rai @ Kamlesh @ GudduversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The Court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Guddu Rai applied for anticipatory bail after being named in an FIR for the murder of an informant's son, alleged under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution claims that Rai, along with other accused, abducted the victim, killed him and hung the body to simulate suicide. The petitioner’s counsel argued that there is no eye‑witness, the accusation is based merely on suspicion and the petitioner is innocent. The State opposed the bail, highlighting the specific nature of the charge, the seriousness of the offence and the petitioner’s prior criminal record. Considering the gravity of the alleged crime, the direct accusation and the antecedent, the Court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the serious nature of the charges under IPC 302 and 34
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent warrants denial of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- murder
- conspiracy
- IPC 302
- IPC 34
- criminal antecedent
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.90052 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-163 Year-2024 Thana- KHAIRA District- Saran
======================================================
Guddu Rai @ Kamlesh @ Guddu S/O Anjeer Rai R/O Village - Koreya, P.S-
Khaira, District - Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Bishwajeet Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binod Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
4 31-03-2026 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 302 and 34
of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per prosecution case, it is alleged that this
petitioner, along with other F.I.R. named accused persons, took
the son of informant from his house and killed him and
thereafter, hanged his dead body from a tree to make it appear as
suicide.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
committed no offence. There is no eye witness to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.90052 of 2025(4) dt.31-03-2026
2/2
occurrence. Petitioner has been made an accused in this case
merely on suspicion. At best, it is a case of last seen with the
deceased.
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 petitioner is named in the F.I.R.
and there is specific accusation that he, along with other accused
persons, took away son of informant from his house and
thereafter, his dead body was found hanging from a tree.
Petitioner has got one criminal antecedent.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, specific and direct nature of accusation, gravity of offence
and criminal antecedent 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…