Patna High Court
Rahul Sharma @ Rahul KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court granted regular bail to the petitioner.
Summary
Rahul Sharma petitioned for regular bail in a criminal case registered under Section 309(4) of the BNS, alleging that the FIR does not name him and no material has been recovered from his possession. The prosecution’s case is based solely on a confessional statement of co-accused Harsh, who implicated Sharma in the theft of a mobile and video camera. Sharma’s counsel argued that the lack of direct evidence and the absence of his name in the FIR warrant bail, noting that he has been in judicial custody since 18 June 2025. The State opposed the bail application. After hearing both sides, the court found the evidentiary basis insufficient to justify continued detention and ordered Sharma’s release on regular bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner when the only evidence against him is a co-accused’s confessional statement and his name is absent from the FIR.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 309(4)
Subjects
- regular bail
- Section 309(4) BNS
- confessional statement
- co-accused
- criminal procedure
- judicial custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10396 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-229 Year-2025 Thana- WARISLIGANJ District- Nawada
======================================================
Rahul Sharma @ Rahul Kumar Son of Manoj Sharma Resident of Village-
Mafi, P.S.- Warisaliganj, District- Nawada
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Anand, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Sumiran Rai, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 20-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Section 309(4) of the
BNS.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that
unknown miscreants have snatched the mobile and video
camera of the informant on gun point. The FIR was lodged
against unknown miscreants in Warsaliganj P.S. Case No. 216 of
2025. One Harsh has given his confessional statement and on
the basis of his confessional statement, this petitioner was
implicated in that case and this case also.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
name of this petitioner is not there in the FIR. It has further been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10396 of 2026(2) dt.20-02-2026
2/2
submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that nothing has
been recovered from the possession of this petitioner. Save and
except the confessional statement of co-accused Harsh, that too
in other case, there is nothing against this petitioner. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the
petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 18.06.2025.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the bail.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named
petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with
Warsaliganj P.S. Case No. 229 of 2025 on furnishing bail bond
of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M.-IV, Nawada.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-
U T
Checking your session…