Patna High Court
Rajnikant PandeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was not granted to the petitioner.
Summary
Petitioner Rajnikant Pandey applied for anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case (PS Case No. 912 of 2023) alleging theft of a truck and offences under Sections 406, 420, 349 and 120(B)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that Pandey, along with co‑accused Gopal and Ramjeet Yadav, stole the informant’s truck. Pandey’s counsel argued that the allegation was vague, the truck was actually stolen by its driver and cleaner, and that there was no specific charge against his client, who also has no prior criminal record. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges. The Court examined the nature of the allegations and the surrounding circumstances and concluded that the case was not suitable for anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition for anticipatory bail was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code in view of the allegations under the Indian Penal Code.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 34, 349, 406, 420
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Section 438 CrPC
- theft
- criminal breach of trust
- cheating
- rioting
- criminal conspiracy
- High Court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10622 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-912 Year-2023 Thana- SASARAM NAGAR District- Rohtas
======================================================
Rajnikant Pandey S/o Triloki Pandey @ Trilokinath Pandey R/o Village-
Bimari, P.S- Sahpur, Dist- Arrah, (Bhojpur).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sheo Jee Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ram Sumiran Rai, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
2 13-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Sasaram Town P.S. Case No. 912 of 2023, instituted for
the offences under Sections 406, 420, 349 and 120(B)/34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. Prosecution case, in short, is that petitioner along
with other co-accused namely Gopal and Ramjeet Yadav have
stolen the truck of the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. He
further submitted that alleged truck was stolen by its driver and
cleaner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
general and omnibus allegation has been made against the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10622 of 2026(2) dt.13-02-2026
2/2
petitioner. He further submitted that an information petition has
been filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Bhojpur at Ara by one Pramod Kumar Pandey stating therein
that Rajnikant Pandey (Petitioner) is the business partner of the
applicant. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that other co-
accused has been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 23.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
20500 of 2025. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner
that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case and nature of allegation, in my view, this is not a fit
case for anticipatory bail.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
manish/-
U T
Checking your session…