Gaurav Kumar @ Chhote v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22237 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-32 Year-2026 Thana- BACHHWARA District- Begusarai ====================================================== Gaurav Kumar @ Chhote S/o Late Suraj Choudhary Resident of village - Gonuchak, Ward No. 11 (Fateha), P.S - Bachhwara, District - Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate :
Mr. Shanti Bhushan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Amitesh Kumar, A.P.P.
For the Informant :
Mr. Sandip Kumar Gautam, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 14-05-2026 Heard Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sandip Kumar Gautam, learned counsel for the informant and Mr. Amitesh Kumar learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 03.02.2026 in connection with Bachhwara P.S. Case No. 32 of 2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 109, 352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of BNS and Section 27 of Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.02.2026 at about 04:10 P.M, the informant was at his house. In the meantime, accused Gaurav Kumar @ Chhote came there and started abusing and argument arose between them for
2/4 removal of flower plant. Thereafter, accused Gaurav Kumar threatened the informant's son to be fired gun-shot and later on, he started firing. The informant's son got firearm injury on his head and fell on the ground. Other accused persons also started firing on house and then, fled from there. Accused Gaurav Kumar threatened the informant's family to be killed.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that due to some petty dispute the present occurrence has taken place and both the parties are agnates to each other. It is next submitted that the present occurrence has taken place at the spur of the moment but there is no intention on the part of the petitioner to kill anyone although the son of the informant has received injury. It is next submitted that the police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet and petitioner is in custody since 03.02.2026.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submit that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner and he has fired upon the son of the informant and he has received firearm
3/4 injury and the injury sustained is grievous in nature.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and that petitioner has clean antecedent, 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 CJM, Begusarai in connection with Bachhwara P.S. Case No. 32 of 2026, 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 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
4/4 shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Gaurav Sinha/- U T