Golu Kumar @ Golo @ Golu @ Kundan Kumar @ Kundan Kumar Bharti @ Gola Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70549 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-107 Year-2023 Thana- BAKHTIYARPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Golu Kumar @ Golo @ Golu @ Kundan Kumar @ Kundan Kumar Bharti @ Gola Kumar S/o Radheyshyam @ Radheyshyam Rai R/o Village - Ghoshwari, P.S - Bakhatiyarpur, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Usha Kumari Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Nazir Ansari, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 25-02-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of nine cases and is in custody since 12.03.2025 and in sum and substance, the allegation is that this petitioner along with Gulsan Kumar and Rana Randhir fired causing firearm injury to Pankaj Kumar @ Raju Kumar.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that three persons are alleged to have fired causing firearm injury to Pankaj Kumar @ Raju Kumar but then allegation of firing is not

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70549 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026 2/2 specific on which learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that three accused are alleged to have fired on Pankaj Kumar @ Raju Kumar and Pankaj Kumar @ Raju Kumar suffered three firearm injuries.

5. At this stage, learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submits that merely because petitioner is in custody since 12.03.2025 that should not be the sole criteria for considering his bail, rather his criminal antecedent also is to be taken into consideration. It is further submitted that if privilege of regular bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond or try to tamper with the evidence.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail in connection with Bakhatiyarpur P.S. Case No. 107 of 2023 pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judical Magistrate-III, Barh, Patna/Successor Court.

7. Hence, the prayer for bail is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T