Patna High Court
Robin Kumar @ Rabindra KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted to the petitioner on the basis of clean antecedent, lack of direct FIR mention, and precedent of bail to co‑accused.
Summary
Robin Kumar was arrested in connection with a robbery under Section 392 of the IPC, alleged to have been part of a gang that looted Rs. 4.5 lakh, a mobile phone and a motorcycle at gunpoint. He has been in custody since 27‑12‑2025 and contends that he was falsely implicated, noting that his name does not appear in the FIR and that the only evidence against him is a confessional statement of a co‑accused. The prosecution has not produced any other material or conducted a T.I.P. The petitioner has a clean antecedent and two similarly situated co‑accused have previously been granted bail by the same court. The court considered these circumstances and, applying the principles of bail jurisprudence, ordered his release on bail with a bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, presence, and non‑tampering with evidence. The bail order was pronounced by Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused under Section 392 IPC when the FIR does not name him and the only incriminating material is a co‑accused's confessional statement.
- Whether the absence of a T.I.P. and the grant of bail to similarly situated co‑accused affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 392
Subjects
- bail
- robbery
- Section 392 IPC
- false implication
- clean antecedent
- co‑accused
- T.I.P.
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16804 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-47 Year-2024 Thana- BELDOUR District- Khagaria
======================================================
Robin Kumar @ Rabindra Kumar S/o Naresh Singh R/O Village - Bhakhna
Basa, P.S- Alamnagar,Dist- Madhepura, Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Seema Kumari, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 17-03-2026 Heard Ms. Seema Kumari, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
27.012.2025 in connection with Beldaur P.S. Case No. 47 of
2024, F.I.R. dated 20.02.2024 for the offences punishable under
Section 392 of the IPC.
3. According to prosecution case, three unknown
miscreants have looted Rs. 4.5 lakhs, mobile phone and
motorcycle from the informant on the gun point and fled away.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. She further submits that the
petitioner is not named in the F.I.R and his name has been
transpired during investigation on the basis of the confessional
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16804 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026
2/3
statement of the co-accused, namely, Mukesh Kumar and except
the confessional statement, no other material has come during
investigation which suggest the involvement of the petitioner in
the present occurrence. Till date no T.I.P has been conducted by
the prosecution. She further submits that similarly situated, co-
accused, namely, Mukesh Kumar who was apprehended and
who has disclosed the name of the petitioner has been granted
bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
12.08.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 51324 of 2024 and another
co-accused, namely Viplav Kumar has also been granted bail by
a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.06.2025
passed in Cr. Misc. No. 17679 of 2025. The petitioner is in
custody since 27.12.2025.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that the petitioner has clean antecedent, he is not named in the
F.I.R and similarly situated co-accused persons have been
granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, let the
petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16804 of 2026(2) dt.17-03-2026
3/3
Magistrate 1st Class, Khagaria in connection with Beldaur P.S.
Case No. 47 of 2024, subject to the following conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…