Patna High Court
Dhananjay Kumar @ Shankar KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Dhananjay Kumar, was arrested in connection with a robbery under Section 392 of the IPC and illegal possession of arms under Section 27 of the Arms Act after a co‑accused’s confessional statement implicated him. The FIR alleged that an informant’s cash bag was snatched by unknown miscreants, and no direct evidence against the petitioner was presented except the co‑accused’s statement. The petitioner, who had been in judicial custody since 18‑12‑2025, applied for regular bail, asserting his innocence. The State opposed the bail on the seriousness of the offences. After hearing both sides, the High Court found the evidence insufficient to justify continued detention and ordered the petitioner’s release on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the accused in a robbery and arms possession case when the only incriminating material is a co‑accused’s confessional statement.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 392
Subjects
- bail
- robbery
- Arms Act
- confessional statement
- co‑accused
- judicial custody
- regular bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12071 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2024 Thana- MANER District- Patna
======================================================
Dhananjay Kumar @ Shankar Kumar S/o Bijali Ray R/o Village and Post -
Anandpur, P.S - Bihta, District - Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Narendra Kumar Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
3 10-04-2026 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 392 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the informant is
running a grocery shop and he has collected Rs. 13,58,000/-.
Two unknown miscreants snatched his bag containing the cash.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR was lodged
against unknown miscreants. During the course of investigation,
the name of this petitioner has surfaced on the basis of
confessional statement of co-accused Rahul. Nothing has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12071 of 2026(3) dt.10-04-2026
2/2
recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Save and except
confessional statement of the co-accused, there is nothing
against this petitioner. Moreover, he is languishing in judicial
custody since 18.12.2025.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail of the petitioner.
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
Maner P.S. Case No. 02 of 2024 on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Danapur.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U T
Checking your session…