Patna High Court
Golu Kumar @ Golu RayversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the petitioner’s prior cases and the risk of tampering with evidence outweighed any claim to bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Golu Kumar, applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case under Section 310(2) of the BNS, 2023 concerning a robbery of Rs. 4,50,000. The FIR named unknown persons, but CCTV footage identified a co‑accused, Chandan, who, while in custody, disclosed the petitioner’s involvement. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the co‑accused’s confessional statement lacks evidentiary value and that the petitioner has two prior cases. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the prior antecedents, the CCTV identification, and the risk of the petitioner absconding or tampering with evidence. The court, after considering the submissions, declined to grant anticipatory bail, holding that the petitioner’s criminal history and potential threat to the investigation warranted denial.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 310(2) of the BNS, 2023 given his prior criminal antecedents.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused, obtained in police custody, has any bearing on the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- BNS, 2023 — s. 310(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 310(2) BNS 2023
- criminal antecedents
- confessional statement
- CCTV evidence
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15696 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-134 Year-2025 Thana- Mabby District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Golu Kumar @ Golu Ray S/o- Sri Kedar Ray Vill-Simri, Ps-Malinagar, P.S-
Chakmehsi, Dist- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Jyoti Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar No. 2, 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.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Section 310(2) of
the BNS, 2023
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of two cases and the informant alleges
that six named accused came to the informant on 05.10.2025 at
05:20 PM and looted Rs. 4,50,000/- and fled.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR
is against unknown and one Chandan was identified based on
CCTV footage and was apprehended and he disclosed the name
of petitioner as one of an accused who participated in loot. It is
further submitted that confessional statement of apprehended
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15696 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026
2/2
accused in police custody which does not have any evidentiary
value.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the
anticipatory bail application of the petitioner and submits that
no doubt confessional statement does not have any evidentiary
value in the eyes of law, but then petitioner has antecedent of
two cases and Chandan was identified based on CCTV footage
and based on his disclosure, the name of the petitioner
transpired. It is next submitted that if privilege of anticipatory
bail is granted, the petitioner may abscond or try to tamper with
the evidence, since he has antecedents.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
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…