Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Guddu KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Summary

Guddu Kumar was apprehended for a burglary case (Harnaut P.S. Case No. 266 of 2025) involving armed entry, threat to a child, and theft of ornaments, cash, a mobile phone and a TV valued at approximately Rs. 2,95,500. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, arguing that his name appeared only in the co‑accused’s confessional statement and that he had a prior similar criminal antecedent. The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, opposed the bail on the grounds of the seriousness of the offences under Section 309(4) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act. The court examined the allegations, the presence of the petitioner’s name in the confessional statement, and his prior record. Concluding that the circumstances did not warrant bail, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail petition.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case of burglary and armed threat under Section 309(4) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • burglary
  • armed threat
  • confessional statement
  • criminal antecedent
  • Section 309
  • Bihar

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9626 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-266 Year-2025 Thana- HARNAUT District- Nalanda
                 ======================================================
                 Guddu Kumar Son of Subodh Kumar Yadav @Loha Singh@ Subodh Yadav
                 @ Lala Singh Resident of Village- Cheron, P.S.- Harnaut, District- Nalanda

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Anil Kumar No. I, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Nawal Kishore Prasad, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEEN KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   22-04-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

                               2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in a case in

                   connection with Harnaut P.S. Case No. 266 of 2025 dated

                   05.06.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section

                   309(4) of B.N.S

                               3. As per the allegation, the informant alleged that on

                   04.06.2025 at about 1.30 A.M. when the whole family was slept,

                   four miscreants entered her house by roof. On hearing the noise,

                   she woke up and saw that the miscreants were standing near his

                   sleeping son, namely, Sunny Kumar, pointing pistol on him. and

                   told to bring the key of Godrej and after getting the key, two of

                   them entered into the adjacent room and open the lock of Godrej

                   and took away ornaments and cash. They also took away three
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9626 of 2026(3) dt.22-04-2026
                                                       2/2




                     mobile phone and one T.V. which was installed in verandah. The

                     informant has firm belief that total cost of stolen goods was at

                     about Rs. 2,95,500/-(Two lakh ninety five thousand Five

                     hundred).

                                  4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted

                     that the name of the petitioner has transpired in the confessional

                     statement of co-accused person. The petitioner has got one

                     criminal antecedent also of similar nature.

                                  5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently

                     opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner.

                                  6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances

                     of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to

                     the petitioner and the same is accordingly dismissed.



                                                (Praveen Kumar, J)
shivam/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.