Ranu Kumar @ Ayush Gupta v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12162 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-728 Year-2025 Thana- GOPALGANJ TOWN DistrictGopalganj ====================================================== Ranu Kumar @ Ayush Gupta S/o Paras Sah @ Paras Prasad Resident of - Jangaliya Ward No. 18, P.S - Gopalganj, District - Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kumar Harshvardhan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Anirudh Kumar Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-04-2026 Heard Mr. Kumar Harshvardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Mr. Anirudh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the Informant.

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 29.11.2025 in connection with Gopalganj P.S. Case No. 728 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 30.09.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 3103(1), 61(2), 303(2) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.

3. According to the prosecution's case, the informant

2/4 suspects that this petitioner got his son (now, deceased) murdered through unknown assailants when the deceased had gone to Gopalganj to visit a fair (mela) with his friend, namely Kush Kumar.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name transpired during investigation on the basis of CCTV footage which is recorded in paragraph-83 of the case diary. Thereafter the confessional statement of the said Kush Kumar was recorded in which he stated a different story. He next submits that no one had seen the alleged occurrence, even co-accused had not seen the occurrence and CCTV does not support the allegation as alleged in the FIR or by the coaccused persons and except suspicion, no other cogent material has come during investigation which suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 29.11.2025.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the Informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submit that it

3/4 has come during investigation that petitioner was involved in the present crime in question and apart from that the petitioner carries two criminal antecedents but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph-3 of the bail application that the petitioner is on bail in the said matter.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Gopalganj, Bihar in connection with Gopalganj P.S. Case No. 728 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his

4/4 criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Suruchi/- U T