Patna High Court
Sandeep KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court denied regular bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Sandeep Kumar, a 21‑year‑old student, applied for regular bail in a case registered under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code for alleged robbery of a motor‑bike and cash. He has been in custody since 30 October 2025 and argues that he is not named in the FIR and that his alleged involvement stems only from a confession of co‑accused Vikram, which he contends lacks evidentiary value. The State opposes bail, pointing out that Vikram’s confession implicates the petitioner and that the stolen motorcycle was recovered from Vikram’s house, indicating the petitioner’s participation. The court, after hearing both sides, was not persuaded by the petitioner's arguments and declined to grant regular bail. However, the court allowed the petitioner to file a fresh bail application after the charge sheet is framed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 394 IPC given that the only incriminating material is a co‑accused’s confession
- Whether a confession recorded in police custody has evidentiary value for granting bail
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 394
Subjects
- bail
- robbery
- Section 394 IPC
- confession
- evidentiary value
- clean antecedent
- student
- Criminal Procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10154 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-64 Year-2024 Thana- SINDHUGAR District- Gaya
======================================================
Sandeep Kumar Son of Raghu Yadav Resident of village - Jarlahi, P.S.-
Sindugarh, District - Gaya.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Satya Veer
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Kumar Ranjit Ranjan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 04-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in Sindugarh P. S. Case
No.64 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under
Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is in custody since 30.10.2025 and is a person
with clean antecedent. It is next submitted that informant alleges
that two unknown accused intercepted him on 12.06.2024 at
7.00 P.M. while he was returning home on his motorcycle and
on point of gun looted his mobile, Rs.20,500/- and the
motorcycle.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is not named in the FIR and during course of
investigation his name transpired in the confession of Vikram in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10154 of 2026(2) dt.04-05-2026
2/2
police custody, which does not have any evidentiary value.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the bail application and
submits that name of the petitioner transpired in the
confessional statement of Vikram but then looted motorcycle
was recovered from the house of Vikram and Vikram in his
confession before the police accepted his participation in the
occurrence along with the petitioner.
6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner does not dispute the said submission of the learned
APP, but then submits that petitioner is a student and is a young
boy aged about 21 years and in support of the fact that petitioner
is a student, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner relies on an Annexure-2 to the bail application.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on regular bail.
8. The prayer of the petitioner for regular bail stands
rejected.
9. However, petitioner would be at liberty to renew
his prayer for bail after framing of charge.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…