Guddu Kumar @ Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27923 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2024 Thana- KARPI District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Guddu Kumar @ Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj, Male, aged about 21 years, Son of Ram Ratan Singh, Resident of village - Hansraj, Police Station - Karpi, District - Arwal.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner :
Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate For the Opposite Party :
Mr. J.N. Tripathi, A.P.P.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER 10-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Karpi P.S. Case No. 85 of 2024 dated 20.03.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, when the informant's elder brother proceeded from his motorcycle to his house from his working place i.e., Petrol Pump and when he reached near Dharamkanta then some miscreants fired on him, due to which, he sustained injury. Thereafter, the injured was taken to the hospital where the doctor declared him to be dead.
4. Earlier prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27923 of 2025(2) dt.10-07-2025 2/3 by a Bench of this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 68172 of 2024 dated 21.09.2024, annexed as Annexure-P/2 to the present bail petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and there is no eye witness to the alleged offence. There is no overt act alleged against the petitioner. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the charge has not been framed till date. The petitioner has clean antecedent as stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. The petitioner is in custody in this case since 25.03.2024.
6. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail petition of the petitioner. Learned A.P.P. has further submitted that in paragraph no. 7 of the case diary, it has come that the petitioner was identified in the CCTV footage of the 'Bhashkar Petrol Pump' and the tower location of the petitioner has been found near the place of occurrence. As per paragraph no. 28 of the case diary, the wife of the deceased has stated that one day prior to the alleged occurrence, the petitioner alongwith his associates had came to her house in search of her
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27923 of 2025(2) dt.10-07-2025 3/3 husband (deceased) and threatened to kill him. As per paragraph nos. 29 and 44 of the case diary, the witnesses have stated that on the alleged date of occurrence, an altercation took place between the petitioner and the deceased regarding payment of money and the petitioner threatened that he would kill the deceased and on that very day, the deceased was shot dead. The tower location of the mobile of the petitioner and his associates was also found near the place of occurrence on the alleged date and time of occurrence which is mentioned in paragraph no. 103 of the case diary.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and finding substance in the contention of the learned A.P.P. for the State, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and the same is again rejected in connection with Karpi P.S. Case No. 85 of 2024, pending in the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-I, Jehanabad.
8. The application stands rejected.
9. The learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the petitioner and conclude the same at the earliest. (Chandra Prakash Singh, J) U.K./- U T