Patna High Court
Chhotu Kumar @ Chhotu Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Chhotu Kumar Yadav, applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a theft case (PS Case No.210/2025) involving alleged theft and sale of a stolen motorcycle. The allegations against him stem from a confessional statement made by his brother Nitish while in police custody, which the petitioner contended lacks evidentiary value. The petitioner asserted he has a clean antecedent and is being falsely implicated, while the State argued that the confession implicates him and that further investigation is necessary. The learned APP highlighted inconsistencies in the petitioner's claim of a clean record and the absence of any claim of bonafide profession. After considering the submissions, the court declined to grant anticipatory bail, finding the allegations sufficient to warrant continued investigation. Consequently, the anticipatory bail application was rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the primary allegation is based on a confessional statement of a co-accused made in police custody
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of a clean antecedent and lack of professional details affect the grant of anticipatory bail
- Whether the investigation necessitates further interrogation of the accused, justifying denial of bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S., 2023 — s. 317(3), 317(5), 3(5)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- confessional statement
- false implication
- clean antecedent
- theft of stolen motorcycle
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18779 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-210 Year-2025 Thana- KURSAILA District- Katihar
======================================================
Chhotu Kumar @ Chhotu Kumar Yadav Son of Late Vinod Yadav R/o
Kursela, P.S. - Kursela, Distt.- Katihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ramchandra Sahni, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 02-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Kursela P.S. Case No.210/2025, registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 317(3), 317(5) and 3(5) of the
B.N.S., 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant
alleges that on information, the house of the accused was raided
and Nitish was apprehended with the stolen motorcycle who
disclosed that his brother Chotu (petitioner) and Abhay are also
involved in committing theft and sale of stolen motorcycle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18779 of 2026(2) dt.02-04-2026
2/3
informant based on confessional statement of his brother Nitish
in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value. It
is also submitted that petitioner is a person with clean
antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that from perusal
of the order impugned, it would manifest that the same records
that petitioner has antecedent of one case but the petitioner in
the instant anticipatory bail application has pleaded that he is a
person with clean antecedent at Para-3. It is also submitted that
name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement
of apprehended accused but then the allegation is of committing
theft of motorcycle and selling the same as such the
investigation and interrogation of the accused is required. It is
also submitted that there is no averment in the anticipatory bail
application to establish the bonafide of the petitioner with
regard to his profession.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is
rejected.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18779 of 2026(2) dt.02-04-2026
3/3
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…