Patna High Court
Bittu Prakash @ Bittu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Bail was denied as the court was not inclined to release the petitioner on regular bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Bittu Prakash, was arrested in connection with a case involving alleged looting of a businessman and was charged under IPC sections 399, 402, 413, 414 and Arms Act sections 25(1‑b)a, 26, 35. He has five prior cases and has been in custody since 12‑11‑2025. The prosecution’s case rests on the recovery of a pistol, live cartridges and a mobile from six apprehended accused, whose confessional statements named the petitioner. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the name appeared only in co‑accused statements, which lack evidentiary value, and that the informant had implicated him. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences, the petitioner’s antecedent record and the risk of absconding. The Court declined to grant bail, directing that the petitioner may renew his application after the charge sheet is filed.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused charged with serious offences under the IPC and Arms Act when the primary evidence is the confessional statements of co‑accused.
- Whether the petitioner’s antecedent record and risk of absconding justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 35
- Indian Penal Code — s. 399, 402, 413, 414
Subjects
- bail
- IPC
- Arms Act
- serious offences
- antecedent record
- confessional statement
- absconding risk
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10912 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-299 Year-2023 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
Bittu Prakash @ Bittu Kumar S/o Sheo Kumar Yadav R/o Village - Dhawahi,
P.S - Harsidhi, District - East Champaran, Motihari
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajesh Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Humayou Ahmad Khan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 04-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Harsidhi P.S. Case No.299/2023, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 399, 402, 413, 414 of the Indian
Penal Code & Sections 25(1-b)a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has antecedent of five cases and is in custody since
12-11-2025 and and the informant alleges that an information
was received that criminals have gathered with an intent to loot
a businessman, accordingly he reached the place of occurrence
along with police force and six accused were apprehended and
from the apprehended accused, pistol, live cartridges and mobile
were recovered as detailed in the FIR and they disclosed the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10912 of 2026(2) dt.04-05-2026
2/3
name of petitioner and Umesh, who fled from the place of
occurrence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner was not arrested from the spot and his name
transpired in the confessional statement of apprehended accused
in police custody, which does not have any evidentiary value. It
is also submitted that since petitioner has antecedent, as such
informant got him implicated through the apprehended accused
persons.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes
the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the
informant received an information that criminals have gathered
to loot a businessman and accordingly informant along with
police force reached the place of occurrence and six accused
were apprehended from whom pistol and live cartridges were
recovered and it was on their disclosure that name of petitioner
transpired. It is next submitted that if privilege of regular bail is
granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond, on which
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submits that Umesh Kumar had approached this Court seeking
regular bail by filing Cr. Misc No. 10206 of 2026 and the same
came to be allowed by an order dated 24-4-2026, it is also
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10912 of 2026(2) dt.04-05-2026
3/3
submitted that it is not the case of the prosecution that accused
persons including the petitioner looted any businessman, on
which the learned APP submits that Umesh Kumar was a person
with clean antecedent.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
7. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to
renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…