Patna High Court
Pintu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail must be granted because the only material against the petitioner is a co‑accused’s confession and he has a clean antecedent, subject to prescribed conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Pintu Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in a case involving alleged illegal sale of stolen vehicles under Sections 317(2), 318(4), 336(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution’s case rested solely on a confessional statement of a co‑accused, with no stolen vehicle recovered from the petitioner’s possession and no material linking him to the FIR. The petitioner argued that he was not present at the scene, was not named in the FIR, and had a clean antecedent. The State opposed the bail, contending that the confession implicated the petitioner. The Court, considering the lack of substantive evidence, the petitioner’s clean record, and the precedent of anticipatory bail granted to a co‑accused, ordered that the petitioner be released on bail upon surrender within six weeks, subject to a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and conditions under Section 482(2).
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in view of the allegations and the nature of evidence.
- Whether a confessional statement of a co‑accused alone suffices to deny anticipatory bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s non‑inclusion as a named accused in the FIR affects the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 317(2), 318(4), 336(3), 3(5), 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- confessional statement
- stolen vehicle
- clean antecedent
- Section 482
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17504 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-211 Year-2025 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
Pintu Kumar S/O Nagendra Sah Resident of PipraKothi (Chap Chowk), P.S-
Piprakothi, Distt.- East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kundan Rathore @ Kundan Kumar, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
3 13-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Harsidhi P.S. Case No.211 of 2025 instituted under
Sections 317(2), 318(4), 336(3) & 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, two stolen Bolero
vehicles have been recovered from the possession of co-accused
persons and on demand of papers, they failed to produce any
valid documents before the police.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this
case only on the basis of confessional statement made by the co-
accused Brajesh Pandey that the petitioner is involved in illegal
sale of stolen vehicles. He further submits that petitioner is not
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17504 of 2026(3) dt.13-05-2026
2/3
the owner of alleged stolen vehicle and no stolen vehicle was
recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner.
Learned counsel submits that petitioner was not present at the
spot on the alleged date of occurrence and he is not the named
accused in the F.I.R. He further submits that except the
confessional statement of the co-accused, there is no material
against the petitioner to implicate him in the present occurrence.
Learned counsel submits that similarly situated co-accused,
namely, Rameshwar Das has already been granted anticipatory
bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
30.01.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No.5021 of 2026. He further
submits that petitioner has got clean antecedent and he
undertakes to cooperate in the investigation and trial of the case.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the
nature of allegation leveled against the petitioner as well as his
clean antecedent, in the event of arrest or surrender before the
Court below within six weeks from today, the petitioner be
released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount to
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17504 of 2026(3) dt.13-05-2026
3/3
each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M, East Champaran,
Motihari/ concerned Court in connection with Harsidhi P.S.
Case No.211 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down in
Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-Utkarsh/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.