Gorakh Chaudhary @ Bipin Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.51278 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-375 Year-2026 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya ====================================================== Gorakh Chaudhary @ Bipin Kumar Son of Late Rajeshwar Chaudhary @ Rajesh Chaudhary Resident of Village- Madan Bigha, P.S.- Chakand, DistrictGaya Ji ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Paras Nath, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umeshanand Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 29-07-2026 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned APP for the State.

2. The present criminal miscellaneous application has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'the BNSS, 2023') for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner who apprehends arrest in connection with Muffasil P.S. Case No. 375 of 2026, lodged on 15/04/2026, under Sections 103(1), 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution, the FIR has been lodged against five named accused persons including the present petitioner against whom there is allegation that they have assaulted the deceased and one of them fired upon him with a country made pistol causing fatal fire-arm injury, due to which

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.51278 of 2026(2) dt.29-07-2026 2/2 he died.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that there is general and omnibus allegation against the accused persons. He submits that deceased sustained single bullet injury on his chest due to which he died during treatment. He submits that during Harsh firing the deceased sustained injury but none have fired willfully or deliberately upon the deceased. Counsel submits that antecedent of the petitioner is not clean and he ready to fulfill all the conditions whatsoever shall be imposed upon him.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that in Harsh firing the husband of the informant died.

6. Considering the fact that in Harsh firing the husband of the informant died and petitioner was alleged to be present there, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner is hereby refused.

(Dr. Anshuman, J) Mkr./Anshuman/ U T