Patna High Court
Sheshmani KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court granted regular bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Sheshmani Kumar, was arrested in connection with a robbery under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act after a grocery shop owner reported a theft of Rs. 13,58,000. The prosecution's case relied mainly on the confession of a co-accused, Rahul, who mentioned the petitioner, but no direct evidence was recovered from the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the FIR was lodged against unknown miscreants and that he had been in judicial custody since 04-07-2025 without substantive proof. The State opposed bail, citing two prior criminal convictions. After hearing both sides, the court found the evidence insufficient to justify continued detention and ordered the petitioner released on regular bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted in a case of robbery and arms offence where the only incriminating material is a co-accused's confessional statement.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 392
Subjects
- bail
- robbery
- Arms Act
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedents
- judicial custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18839 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2024 Thana- MANER District- Patna
======================================================
Sheshmani Kumar S/o Jai Nandan Ray R/o- Railway Colony, Digha Ghat,
P.S- Digha, Dist- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Alok, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mrs. Pushpa Sinha, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 26-03-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case
registered for the offence punishable under section 392 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the informant is
running a grocery shop and he has collected Rs. 13,58,000/-.
Two unknown miscreants snatched his bag containing the cash.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR was lodged
against unknown miscreants. During investigation, co-accused
Rahul was apprehended and the name of this petitioner has
surfaced in his confessional statement. Nothing has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18839 of 2026(2) dt.26-03-2026
2/2
recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Save and except
confessional statement of the co-accused, there is nothing
against this petitioner. Moreover, he is languishing in judicial
custody since 04.07.2025.
5. Learned APP appearing for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer of regular bail and has
submitted that petitioner is having two criminal antecedents.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named
petitioner is directed to be released on bail in connection with
Maner P.S. Case No. 02 of 2024 on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class,
Danapur.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Shubham/-
U T
Checking your session…