Patna High Court
Bali Ram SharmaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to specified conditions.
Summary
Bali Ram Sharma was arrested on 9 November 2025 in connection with FIR No. 07/2025 alleging assault and theft of mobile phones, punishable under Section 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution’s case is based on the testimony of a co‑accused, Sunil Kumar, whose confessional statement implicated the petitioner, while the FIR does not name him. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, highlighting that the seized mobile phones differed in brand and IMEI numbers from those described in the FIR, and that he has a clean antecedent. Counsel for the petitioner argued lack of corroborative material beyond the co‑accused’s statement. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed bail. The Court, after considering the circumstances, granted bail on a bond of Rs. 10,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions regarding cooperation, presence, non‑tampering of evidence, and verification of antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the allegations under Section 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the confessional statement of a co‑accused alone suffices to justify continued detention.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 309(4)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Section 309(4)
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita
- confessional statement
- false implication
- mobile theft
- evidence discrepancy
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.1921 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-240 Year-2025 Thana- KAMTAUL District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Bali Ram Sharma S/o Shyam Sundar Sharma R/o Village- Lakhanpur, P.S-
Jajuar, Dist- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate
: Mr. Aradhana Kumari, Advocate
: Mr. Akash Deep, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 20-01-2026 Heard Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as Mr. Upendra Kumar, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
09.11.2025 in connection with Kamtaul P.S. Case No. 240 of
2025, F.I.R. dated 07.11.2025 for the offences punishable under
Sections 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, the informant alleged
that when he along with other person were proceeding towards
poultry farm, then two unknowns persons riding a motorcycle
came and forcibly stopped their vehicle and assaulted them and
snatched their mobile phones 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. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1921 of 2026(2) dt.20-01-2026
2/3
false and fabricated. Petitioner is not named in the FIR and his
name transpired on the basis of confessional statement of co-
accused person, namely, Sunil Kumar and except the confessional
statement of co-accused person, no other cogent material has
come during investigation which suggest the involvement of the
petitioner in the present occurrence. Infact petitioner is the owner
of the mobile repairing shop and the said Sunil Kumar has given
the mobile to the petitioner for repair and the same was recovered
from the shop of the petitioner. He further submits that from bare
perusal of the FIR it appears that FIR mentions a mobile phone of
POCO company bearing IMEI no.868737078981840 and
868737078981857 but the mobile phone allegedly seized from the
petitioner’s shop is of REALME company, bearing IMEI no.
860318077601735 and 860318077601727 and the petitioner is in
custody since 09.11.2025.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
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 Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Darbhanga in connection with Kamtaul P.S. Case No.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.1921 of 2026(2) dt.20-01-2026
3/3
240 of 2025, 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)
Suruchi/-
U T
Checking your session…