Gulshan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.54008 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-430 Year-2024 Thana- TEGHRHA District- Begusarai ====================================================== Gulshan Kumar S/o Bhushan Singh R/o Village - Madhurapur South Tola, Ward No. - 27, P.S - Teghra, District - Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Pradeep Narain Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 12-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. Earlier, anticipatory bail of the petitioner was rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 18337 of 2025.

3. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Teghra P.S. Case No. 430 of 2024, instituted for the offences punishable under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

4. The prosecution case, in short, is that other coaccused ordered the petitioner to shot the informant upon which the petitioner has fired on the leg of the informant due to which he sustained injury.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.54008 of 2025(2) dt.12-08-2025 2/2 present case. No incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner has committed no offence as alleged in the FIR. All the allegations levelled against the petitioner is baseless. The petitioner is in custody since 05.06.2025 and has got one criminal antecedent in which he is on bail.

6. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submits that there is specific allegation of firing against the petitioner which hit on the leg of the informant. There is also an allegation of repeated firing. It is further submitted that the doctor has found the injury grievous in nature. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of bail.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. The prayer is rejected. The trial Court is directed to expedite the Trial.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T