Patna High Court
Vishal Kumar @ Monti @ Vishal PratapversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied because the seriousness of the offences, the petitioner’s prior cases, and the risk of absconding outweighed any claim of lack of evidentiary value in the confessional statement.
Summary
The petitioner, Vishal Kumar, applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case involving alleged snatching of a purse and subsequent cyber‑fraud, charged under Sections 356, 379, 420 of the IPC and Section 66(c) of the IT Act. He claimed the FIR named unknown persons and that his name only appeared in a confessional statement of an accused, which he argued lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed bail, highlighting the ongoing investigation, the petitioner’s prior two cases, and the risk of absconding, especially since his residence and place of work in Hyderabad were not detailed in the bail petition. The court examined the relevance of the confessional statement, the seriousness of the offences, and the petitioner’s antecedents, concluding that granting anticipatory bail would be inappropriate. Consequently, the court rejected the anticipatory bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case involving snatching and cyber‑offence.
- Whether a confessional statement of an accused provides sufficient basis to deny bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents and risk of absconding justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 356, 379, 420
- Information Technology Act — s. 66(c)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- snatching
- cyber crime
- IPC
- IT Act
- confessional statement
- bail jurisprudence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15566 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-142 Year-2020 Thana- SHRIKRISHNAPURI District- Patna
======================================================
Vishal Kumar @ Monti @ Vishal Pratap S/o Late Samir Kumar Jayaswal R/o
Gate no. 1, DVC Chowk, Gardanibagh, P.S.- Gardanibagh, Distt.- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aashit Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 24-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State, Mr. Rabindra Kumar.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 356, 379
and 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 66(c) of the
Information Technology Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of two cases and the informant alleges
that on 01.06.2020 at about 06:25 PM while she was on her
evening walk at Boring Road, Patna, her purse containing Rs.
1,000/- in cash along with her mobile was snatched by two
unknown persons on a motorcycle, further on the same day at
about 08:00 PM, an amount of Rs. 1 Lakh was transferred from
her bank account to the said stolen mobile.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15566 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR
is against unknown and the name of the petitioner transpired
during the course of investigation in the confessional statement
of apprehended accused in police custody which does not have
any evidentiary value. It is further submitted that petitioner for
earning his livelihood is residing at Hyderabad.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the
anticipatory bail application of the petitioner and submits that it
is a case of snatching based on which cyber crime was also
committed, no doubt name of the petitioner transpired in the
confessional statement of apprehended accused, but then the
investigation of the case is continuing. It is also submitted that
no doubt at Para-14 of the anticipatory bail application, it has
been pleaded that petitioner for earning his livelihood stays at
Hyderabad, but then the anticipatory bail application is
completely silent with regard to the fact that where the
petitioner works and resides at Hyderabad which amply
demonstrates that only for creating a defence, the said plea has
been taken. It is further submitted that petitioner has antecedent
of two cases and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted, the
petitioner may abscond.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15566 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026
3/3
APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail
application stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Rishabh/-
U T
Checking your session…