Patna High Court

Rahul KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 25 February 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY

Holding

The court held that, given the alleged false implication, procedural lapses in seizure, and the precedent of bail to a similarly situated co‑accused, the petitioner is entitled to regular bail.

Summary

The petitioner, Rahul Kumar, sought regular bail in a case registered under Section 310(2) of the BNS for alleged involvement in a robbery where pistols and cash were taken from an informant's house. He claimed the FIR was lodged against unknown miscreants and that he was falsely implicated, citing a confessional statement by another accused and alleging non‑compliance with Section 105 of the BNSS during seizure of evidence. The petitioner also highlighted that a co‑accused, Raushan Kumar, had been granted bail in a similar case (Cr. Misc. No. 6100 of 2026). The State opposed bail, pointing to the petitioner's two prior criminal cases. After considering the arguments, the court found merit in the petitioner's claim of false implication and the procedural lapse, and ordered his release on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 310(2) of the BNS.
Whether the seizure of the pistol and cash complied with Section 105 of the BNSS.
Whether the petitioner's prior criminal antecedents preclude the grant of bail.

Legislation cited

BNS — s. 310(2)
BNSS — s. 105

Subjects

regular bail
Section 310(2) BNS
Section 105 BNSS
seizure procedure
criminal antecedent
false implication
bail jurisprudence

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13628 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-430 Year-2025 Thana- KHAJEKALA District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Rahul Kumar Son of Shankar Sah @ Shyam Babu Saw Resident of - Deewan
                 Mohalla, Pato Ki Bagh, P.S.- Khajekala, District – Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
                 The State of Bihar                                     ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Arvind Kumar Pradhan, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sinha, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   25-02-2026                  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 310(2) of the

                   BNS.

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

                   persons on point of pistol entered in the house of the informant.

                   They took away various articles including cash, mobile phones

                   and hard disk of CCTV.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   FIR was lodged against unknown miscreants and the petitioner

                   was falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the

                   petitioner has submitted that one Md. Raja has given his

                   confessional statement before police. It has further been submitted

                   that from possession of this petitioner one country made pistol

                   with live cartridge and Rupees Thirty Thousand were recovered.
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13628 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
                                                        2/2




                      Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the witnesses

                      of the seizure list are police personnel and police has not complied

                      Section 105 of the BNSS while making seizure. It has further been

                      submitted that similarly situated co-accused Raushan Kumar has

                      been granted bail by learned Co-ordinate Bench vide Cr. Misc. No.

                      6100 of 2026. The case of this petitioner stands on similar footing.

                      Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner

                      is languishing in judicial custody since 18.10.2025.

                                   5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed

                      the bail and has submitted that the petitioner is having criminal

                      antecedent of two cases.

                                   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

                      Khajekala P.S. Case No. 430 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 J.M. 1 st Class, Patna City.



                                            (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-

U      T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…