Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Nagendra JhaversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISPOSED

Holding

Anticipatory bail is denied to petitioner No. 1 but granted to petitioner No. 2 subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Summary

The petitioners, Nagendra Jha and his son Raghav Kumar Jha, sought anticipatory bail in a criminal case registered under Sections 331(4) and 305(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for alleged theft from their house. The FIR alleged that stolen articles were recovered from the residence of petitioner No. 1, who claimed the items were given to him as a gift (daan) by the informant and later declared stolen. No stolen property was found in the possession of petitioner No. 2, and the petitioners asserted clean antecedents. The Court examined the nature of the accusations, the recovery of stolen articles, and the lack of material evidence against petitioner No. 2. Consequently, the Court refused anticipatory bail to petitioner No. 1 but granted it to petitioner No. 2 subject to a bail bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties and compliance with Section 482(2) of the BNSS.

Issues considered

  • What is the appropriate exercise of discretion by the Court in granting or refusing anticipatory bail under Sections 331(4), 305(a) and 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • theft
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
  • criminal procedure
  • clean antecedent
  • bail conditions

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19907 of 2026
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-458 Year-2025 Thana- BAHERA District- Darbhanga
                 ======================================================
           1.     Nagendra Jha Son of Late Ram Sevak Jha Resident of Village - Bahera,
                  Ward No.2, Police Station - Bahera, District - Darbhanga.
           2.    Raghav Kumar Jha @ Raghav Jha Son of Nagendra Jha Resident of Village
                 - Bahera, Ward No.2, Police Station - Bahera, District - Darbhanga.

                                                                                  ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Nilendu Kumar Choudhary, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Kumar Ranjit Ranjan, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   07-04-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the

                   State.

                                2. Petitioners apprehend arrest in a case registered for

                   the offences punishable under Sections 331(4), 305(a) of the

                   Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

                                3. As per F.I.R., informant suspects that all the named

                   accused persons, including these petitioners, committed theft in

                   is house. During investigation, certain stolen articles were

                   recovered from the house of petitioner no. 1.

                                4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are

                   innocent and have committed no offence. As a matter of fact,

                   petitioner no. 1 is priest by profession and the seized articles
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19907 of 2026(2) dt.07-04-2026
                                                        2/2




                      were given to him by the informant as ‘Daan’ which informant,

                      later on, declared as stolen. No stolen article has been recovered

                      from the conscious possession of petitioner no. 2 and petitioners

                      have been made accused in this case due to prior dispute.

                      Petitioners claim clean antecedent.

                                   5. Considering the nature of accusation and recovery

                      of stolen articles, prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner no.

                      1 is refused.

                                   6. However, considering the fact that no stolen article

                      has been recovered from petitioner no. 2, the anticipatory bail

                      with regard to petitioner no. 2 is allowed and it is ordered that

                      the above named petitioner no. 2 in the event of his

                      arrest/surrender before the court below within a period of eight

                      weeks from today, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond

                      of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) with two sureties of the like

                      amount each to the satisfaction of learned Additional Chief

                      Judicial Magistrate II, Benipur, Darbhanga in connection with

                      Bahera P. S. Case No. 458 of 2025, subject to condition as laid

                      down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.



                                            (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
U       T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.