Guddu Singh Alias Rupesh Kumar Singh Vs the… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2026)

Guddu Singh Alias Rupesh Kumar Singh Vs the… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner in connection with Kunda Police Station Case No.20 of 2017 (Sessions Trial No.418 of 2023) for offences under Sections 302, 307, 120(B) IPC and Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26, 27, 35 Arms Act.

Court's answer

Bail is refused considering the nature of the allegation against the petitioner, coupled with the large number of cases against him in the Criminal Antecedent Report, the threat perception upon witnesses, and the fact that only 3 to 4 witnesses remain with trial expected to conclude within six months as submitted by learned A.P.P.; the court is not inclined to grant the privilege of bail.

Ratio / Principle

The court records a threat perception upon witnesses, apparent from the evidence of P.W.6 (the informant), who stated that the petitioner threatens to kill anyone who gives evidence against him; some witnesses have been declared hostile.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Fourth bail application of Guddu Singh @ Rupesh Kumar Singh for regular bail in Kunda Police Station Case No.20 of 2017 corresponding to Sessions Trial No.418 of 2023 (offences under Sections 302, 307, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act), pending before the Additional Sessions Judge IV, Deoghar; his three earlier bail prayers had been rejected. Petitioner's counsel urged that at the time of occurrence the petitioner was in custody (Gogri PS Case No.70 of 2015 / Khagaria Jail), charge stood framed and most witnesses examined; the State (A.P.P. Azeemuddin) opposed, portraying him as the mastermind behind the informant's husband's murder (alleged political rivalry), citing sixteen listed criminal antecedent cases, threat perception to witnesses, and 3-4 witnesses remaining with trial to conclude within six months. Ananda Sen, J., weighing the nature of the allegation, the criminal antecedent report, the threat perception apparent from P.W.6's evidence, and the imminent completion of trial, declined bail and dismissed the application (18.02.2026).

2026:JHHC:4708

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 12176 of 2025

-----

Guddu Singh @ Rupesh Kumar Singh, S/o Late Tuntun Singh, resident of Village Pasraha, PO PS Pasraha, Sub Division Khagariya, Dist. Khagariya, Bihar.

… … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Opposite Party

---CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

---- For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashish Kumar Shekhar, Advocate For the State: Mr. Azeemuddin, A.P.P. ----

05/18.02.2026 By way of this bail application, the petitioner prays for grant of regular bail in connection with Kunda Police Station Case No.20 of 2017 corresponding to Sessions Trial No.418 of 2023, registered for offences under Sections 302, 307, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge IV, Deoghar.

2. The case was taken up on 13.02.2026 when the respective counsel for the parties argued their case at length.

3. It is alleged that the husband of the informant was murdered because of some political rivalry. This petitioner was in jail and he was the master mind behind the murder of husband of the informant.

4. Earlier thrice the prayer for bail of the petitioner has been rejected. This is the fourth time the petitioner has moved this bail application for grant of bail.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at the time of occurrence, the petitioner was in custody in connection with Gogri Police Station Case No.70 of 2015. Learned counsel further submitted that charge has already been framed and majority of witnesses have also been examined by the prosecution, who have not stated anything showing complicity of this petitioner. He submits that the informant herself has stated in her evidence that at the time of occurrence the petitioner was in custody in Khagaria Jail.

6. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner. He submitted that it is this petitioner, who is the mastermind in committing murder of informant’s husband. By referring to the antecedent report, learned A.P.P. submitted that the petitioner is involved in number of cases. He also submitted that only 3 to 4 witnesses now remain to be examined in this case and the same will be concluded within six months.

-: 1 :-

2026:JHHC:4708

He submitted that this is not a fit case for grant of privilege of bail to the petitioner.

7. I have perused the records and antecedent report in respect of the petitioner. Some of the witnesses have been declared hostile. There is a threat perception upon witnesses also, which is apparent from the evidence of P.W.6, the informant, who has stated in her evidence that the petitioner threatens that if anyone gives evidence against him, he will kill him also. From the criminal antecedent report in respect of the petitioner, it is apparent that the petitioner is involved in the following cases: -

(i) Pasraha Police Station Case No.86/15 dated 18.06.2015 for offences under Sections 387/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(ii) Gogri Police Station Case No.70 of 2015 dated 19.02.2015 for offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-B)a/26/27 of the Arms Act.

(iii) Pasraha Police Station Case No.119 of 2015 dated 26.08.2015 for offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

(iv) Parvata Police Station Case No.97 of 2015 dated 22.03.2015 for offences under Sections 25(1B)a/26/35 of the Arms Act and Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code.

(v) Bihpur Police Station Case No.118 of 2002 for offence under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code.

(vi) Gogri Police Station Case No.58 of 2003 dated 20.03.2003, for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

(vii) Parvat Police Station Case No.42 of 2003 dated 03.04.2003 for offences under Section 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

(viii) Gogri Police Station Case No.114 of 2003 dated 09.05.2003 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

(ix) Pasraha Police Station Case No.10 of 2007 dated 05.12.2007 for offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

(x) Pasraha Police Station Case No.37 of 2008 dated 02.06.2008 for offences under Section 387 of the Indian Penal Code.

-: 2 :-

2026:JHHC:4708

(xi) Pasraha Police Station Case No.35 of 2008 dated 06.06.2008 for offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(xii) Parvata Police Station Case No.224 of 2003 dated 14.11.2003 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 353, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

(xiii) Parvata Police Station Case No.90 of 2009 dated 12.03.2009 for offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

(xiv) Parvata Police Station Case No.41 of 2009 dated 01.03.2009 for offences under Section 364(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

(xv) Parvata Police Station Case No.90 of 2009 dated 27.05.2009 for offences under Sections 25(1B)a/26/35 of the Arms Act.

(xvi) Parvata Police Station Case No.189 of 2009 dated 14.11.2009 for offences under Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code.

8. Considering the nature of allegation against the petitioner coupled with the number of cases against the petitioner as described in the Criminal Antecedent Report, as also considering the threat perception and further considering that only 3 to 4 witnesses remain to be examined in this case, which will take trial to conclude within six months, as submitted by learned A.P.P., I am not inclined to grant privilege of bail to the petitioner. The prayer for bail of the petitioner in connection with Kunda Police Station Case No.20 of 2017 corresponding to Sessions Trial No.418 of 2023, registered for offences under Sections 302, 307, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1B)(a), 26, 27 and 35 of the Arms Act, pending in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge IV, Deoghar, is hereby rejected.

9. This bail application stands dismissed.

(Ananda Sen, J.)

Ranchi Dated 18^th February, 2026

Kumar/Cp-03

Uploaded on 18.02.2026

-: 3 :-