Patna High Court
CR. MISC./53765/2026 of Guddu Kushwaha @ Guddu Kumar Kushwaha Vs The State of Bihar on 18 August 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53765 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-136 Year-2026 Thana- KUCHAIKOTE District- Gopalganj ====================================================== 1. Guddu Kushwaha @ Guddu Kumar Kushwaha S/o Late Kishun Kushwaha @ Late Kishun Prasad @
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53765 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-136 Year-2026 Thana- KUCHAIKOTE District- Gopalganj
======================================================
1.
Guddu Kushwaha @ Guddu Kumar Kushwaha S/o Late Kishun Kushwaha @ Late Kishun Prasad @ Late Kishun Bhagat R/o Village - Pokharbhinda, P.S - Kuchaikote, District - Gopalganj
2.
Raju Kushwaha @ Raju Kumar Kushwaha S/o Guddu Kushwaha @ Guddu Kumar Kushwaha R/o Village - Pokharbhinda, P.S - Kuchaikote, District - Gopalganj
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr. Lokesh Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Ms. Rina Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
18-08-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109, 303(2), 117(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that her four sons stay abroad. It is next alleged that her two sons had come from abroad. It is further alleged that her husband was assaulted earlier by her neighbors namely Guddu, Raju, Ayush and Neeraj, hence her two sons had come, further Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53765 of 2026(2) dt.18-08-2026
her sons (Bunty and Baljit) on 21.03.2026 went to enquire to the house of the accused as to why their father was assaulted, when accused persons abused them, hence her family came back home, but after some times accused persons came and started assaulting both her sons, hence her husband intervened to save them, when Guddu and his son Raju assaulted her husband by rod causing fracture of hand and also suffered injury on eye and jaws, further Neeraj and Ayush assaulted her by lathi causing injury on head and snatched chain of Baljit.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant on account of previous dispute. It is also submitted that though it is alleged that Guddu and his son Raju assaulted her husband causing fracture of hand and he also suffered injury on eye and jaws, but then the doctor has opined one injury to be simple and other injury to be grievous. It is next submitted that petitioners and the informant are neighbors and on account of some dispute, an altercation had taken place and thereafter the instant false case came to be instituted.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that from perusal of the allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53765 of 2026(2) dt.18-08-2026
informant who is wife of the injured alleges that her two sons had to come from abroad as her husband was assaulted by the accused persons earlier and when her sons went to the house of the accused for inquiring, they were also abused and thereafter, the accused persons came and assaulted her sons, her husband and the informant. It is also submitted that no doubt one of the injuries has been opined to be simple in nature, but then the other injury on eye and jaws has been opined to be grievous. It is next submitted that informant is wife of the injured, as such it does not appear probable that the informant would implicate someone who was not associated with the assault meted out to her husband.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. Accordingly, the application stands rejected.
rajesh/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T