Patna High Court
Raja Sah @ Raja KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
Petitioner Raja Sah applied for anticipatory bail in a theft case (Simraha P.S. Case No.244 of 2025) where the stolen motorcycle was recovered from co‑accused Santosh and Pritam Bahardar, and the petitioner’s name surfaced through their confessional statements. The prosecution alleged violation of Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, but no incriminating material was found in the petitioner’s possession and he was absent at the scene. The petitioner argued he has a clean antecedent and is being falsely implicated due to village politics. The court examined whether the confessional statements alone justified denial of bail and considered the petitioner’s likelihood of fleeing or tampering with evidence. Finding the petitioner’s absence, lack of seized evidence, and clean record, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438 of the CrPC and Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 CrPC in view of the allegations under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
- Whether the confessional statements of co‑accused are sufficient to deny bail to the petitioner.
- Whether the petitioner poses a risk of fleeing, tampering with evidence, or committing further offences.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 303(2)
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- theft
- motorcycle
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
- Section 303
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 438
- Section 482
- Criminal Procedure
- bail conditions
- political victimisation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10324 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-244 Year-2025 Thana- SIMRAHA District- Araria
======================================================
Raja Sah @ Raja Kumar S/o Sunil Sah Resident of village- Matiyari, Ward
No. 01, Police Station- Araria, Distt.- Araria, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kumar Ravish, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Mukesh Kumar Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 25-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Simraha P.S. Case No.244 of 2025, F.I.R dated
24.02.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section
303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, based on a written
application filed by the informant, Rabi Kumar Bahardar, that
on 02.10.2025 at about 7:30 PM, he and his brother-in-law,
Vijay Kumar Chaudhary, went to the Khwaspur Durga Mandir
Durga Puja fair on a TVS Apache RD 160 CC motorcycle (Reg.
No. BR-11 AE 8502). After visiting the fair, they found the
motorcycle missing. Despite searching the fair premises and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10324 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
2/4
nearby areas, it could not be traced. The motorcycle, owned by
Vijay Kumar Chaudhary, was allegedly stolen by an unknown
person, and the informant requested Simraha Police Station to
take appropriate legal action.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co-
accused persons, namely, Santosh Bahardar and Pritam
Bahardar were apprehended by the Police with the stolen
motorcycle and the name of the petitioner has transpired on the
basis of confessional statement made by the co-accused persons
without there being any specific allegation attributed against this
petitioner. It has next been submitted that the nothing
incriminating is said to have been recovered from the
constructive possession when his house was put to search in his
absence. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner has
clean antecedent and has falsely been implicated in the present
case due to dirty village politics.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that the co-accused persons, namely, Santosh Bahardar and
Pritam Bahardar were apprehended by the Police with the stolen
motorcycle and the name of the petitioner has transpired on the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10324 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
3/4
basis of confessional statement made by the co-accused persons
and the petitioner was neither present at the place of occurrence
nor was anything recovered from his constructive possession
and the petitioner has clean antecedent. Accordingly, this Court
is inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of
his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Araria, in
connection with Simraha P.S. Case No.244 of 2025, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the family
member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide
official document/personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10324 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
4/4
cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
sharun/-
U T
Checking your session…