Patna High Court

Rahul KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 27 February 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY

Holding

The court held that the petitioner is entitled to bail.

Summary

Rahul Kumar was arrested in connection with a 2019 robbery and assault case (PS Makhdumpur Case No. 106) alleged under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (dacoity) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that six miscreants broke into an informant's house, assaulted occupants, stole jewellery and a smartphone, and fired at a person named Jitendra Kumar. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, that the only link to him was a SIM card used in the stolen phone, and that no material was recovered from his possession; he also highlighted his clean record and that he had been in judicial custody since 26‑10‑2025. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences. After hearing both sides, the Patna High Court held that the petitioner was entitled to bail, directing him to furnish a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the serious nature of the offences (dacoity and illegal possession of arms).
Whether the evidence linking the petitioner (SIM card usage) is sufficient to justify denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Arms Act — s. 27
Indian Penal Code — s. 396

Subjects

bail
dacoity
Arms Act
SIM card evidence
criminal procedure
presumption of innocence

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12524 of 2026
                  Arising Out of PS. Case No.-106 Year-2019 Thana- MAKHDUMPUR District- Jehanabad
                 ======================================================
                 Rahul Kumar S/o Sharwan Paswan R/o Village - Ward no. 12, Panchanpur,
                 P.S - Panchanpur, District - Gaya
                                                                        ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                 ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Pritish Kumar Lal, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Ahmad Ali, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER
2   27-02-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with

                   Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 106 of 2019 registered for the offence

                   punishable under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and

                   Section 27 of the Arms Act.

                                3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on the

                   night of 12.03.2019, six miscreants entered the house of the

                   informant through the roof. They inquired about Jitendra Kumar

                   and demanded articles and began to assault them. They have

                   assaulted the inmates and have snatched Jewelries and household

                   articles. It is also alleged that they have fired at one Jitendra.

                                4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

                   has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no

                   offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He also

                   submits that in the FIR, it is also alleged that the miscreants have
          Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12524 of 2026(2) dt.27-02-2026
                                                      2/2




                    looted the smartphone of Redmi company. After two years of

                    filing of this case, it has been found that in that mobile, a SIM was

                    used which was issued in the name of this petitioner. He also

                    submits that nothing has been recovered from his possession; even

                    the mobile phone has not been recovered from his possession. The

                    only allegation is that in the stolen mobile, the SIM that was used,

                    is issued in the name of the petitioner. Moreover, a statement has

                    been made in para 3 of the petition that petitioner has no criminal

                    antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since

                    26.10.2025.

                                 5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP

                    for the State.

                                 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 enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond

                    of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the

                    like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief

                    Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jehanabad in connection with

                    Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 106 of 2019.


                                                   (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Sudhanshu/-
U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…