Patna High Court
Hani Kumar @ Rupesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- ALOK KUMAR SINHA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the petitioner was identified while fleeing and had a prior criminal antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Hani Kumar, was implicated in a FIR alleging participation in a robbery, assault and damage to a vehicle under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. He applied for anticipatory bail, claiming innocence, lack of specific allegations against him, and questioning the identification by the informant. The prosecution highlighted that the informant identified the petitioner while fleeing and noted the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent. The court examined whether the identification was sufficient and whether the charges, particularly under Section 303(2), were attracted. Considering the identification, the seriousness of the alleged offences and the petitioner’s antecedent, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail. The anticipatory bail application was therefore rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite identification by the informant and a criminal antecedent.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR sufficiently attract Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 324(4), 3(5), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- robbery
- assault
- identification
- criminal antecedent
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14819 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-889 Year-2025 Thana- BIHTA District- Patna
======================================================
Hani Kumar @ Rupesh Kumar S/O Lichi Singh @ Kamlesh Singh R/O
Village - Bishunpura, P.S- Bihta, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Syed Asgher Najmi, Adv.
For the State : Mr.Jagdhar Prasad, APP
For the informant : Mr. Abhishek Singh Rathaur, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Adv.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
3 29-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Bihta P.S. Case No. 889 of 2025 registered for the offence
under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 303(2), 324(4), 352, 351(2), 3(5)
of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. According to the prosecution case, the informant is
a land broker with an office in Bihta, Patna. On December 2,
2025, while travelling to Danapur in his personal vehicle
(registration no. BR01JP-5028) to pay a landowner, he was
accompanied by his partners and carrying ₹11 lakhs in cash. At
approximately 3:00 PM, near the Bishambharpur petrol pump,
10–15 unknown individuals on 4–5 motorcycles surrounded and
damaged the vehicle with stones. The assailants forcibly took
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14819 of 2026(3) dt.29-04-2026
2/3
the ₹11 lakhs, a gold chain valued at ₹6 lakhs, and a mobile
phone before fleeing the scene. The informant identified one of
the attackers as Hani Kumar. Accordingly, an FIR was
registered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence as alleged
in the FIR and he has falsely been implicated in this case.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are no
specific allegations against the petitioner regarding assault or
theft. It was further submitted that, according to the First
Information Report, 10–15 individuals on 4–5 motorcycles
arrived at the scene and damaged the informant's vehicle;
however, the informant failed to provide a single license plate
number.
Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that
although the informant identified the petitioner as a member of
the mob while they were fleeing, the informant failed to explain
how he recognized or knew the petitioner. Furthermore, despite
this identification, the informant did not allege that the
petitioner personally assaulted anyone or snatched any property.
Finally, learned counsel argued that Section 303(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is not attracted in this case, as there are
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14819 of 2026(3) dt.29-04-2026
3/3
no specific allegations to support such a charge against the
petitioner.
5. The learned APP opposes the anticipatory bail
application.
6. As per the allegation contained in the FIR, the
allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other 10-15
unknown persons had surrounded the vehicle of the informant,
damaged the vehicle, snatched eleven lakhs and gold chain
worth rupees six lakhs and of having assaulted the informant
and further while fleeing away one of them was identified as the
petitioner. The petitioner also carries one criminal antecedent,
which has been described in paragraph-3 of the application.
7. Considering the fact that the petitioner has been
identified while fleeing away and that he also carries criminal
antecedent, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory
bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is
rejected.
(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)
Prakash Narayan
U T
Checking your session…