Patna High Court
Sudesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner subject to a cash bond, sureties and verification of his criminal antecedents.
Summary
Sudesh Kumar was arrested on 22 March 2024 in connection with a case of oil theft from an Indian Oil Corporation pipeline, charged under multiple IPC sections, the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline Act, the Explosive Substance Act, the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, the Property Act and the E.C. Act. The petitioner contended that he was not named in the FIR, was implicated solely on the basis of a confessional statement recorded in another case, and that the FIR was filed seven days after the alleged incident without explanation, with no eyewitnesses. The prosecution opposed bail, highlighting the petitioner’s 16 prior criminal cases, though he was on bail in 12 of them. The court examined the circumstances, including the delay in filing the FIR and the lack of substantive evidence, and ordered the petitioner’s release on bail with a bond of Rs.10,000 and two sureties, subject to verification of his criminal antecedents and compliance with several conditions. The bail order also directed the lower court to verify the antecedents before accepting the bond but not to delay its acceptance.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the seriousness of the offences and the delay in filing the FIR
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents justify denial of bail
Legislation cited
- E.C. Act — s. 7
- Explosive Substance Act, 1908 — s. 3, 4
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 285, 379, 427, 511
- Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- bail
- oil theft
- pipeline
- IPC
- prior criminal antecedents
- FIR delay
- confessional statement
- verification of antecedents
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19951 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-3 Year-2024 Thana- SALIMPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Sudesh Kumar Son of Bishram Singh Resident of Village- Bidhuna, P.s.-
Bidhuna, District- Auraiya, Uttar Pradesh
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. through its DGR Supervision, Pipeline Division,
Barauni Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, APP
For the IOC : Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 22-04-2026 Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, learned counsel
for the petitioner, Mr. Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the Indian
Oil Corporation and Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
22.03.2024 in connection with S. Tr. No. 1839 of 2025 arising
out of Salimpur P.S. Case No. 03 of 2024, F.I.R. dated
09.01.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 379,
511, 427, 285 and 120(B) of the IPC, Sections 15(2) and 15(4)
of Petroleum and Minerals Pipe Line (Acquisition of Right of
user in land) Act, 1962, Sections 3/4 of Explosive Substance
Act, 1908, Section 3/4 of Prevention to damage of Public
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19951 of 2026(3) dt.22-04-2026
2/4
Property Act and Section 7 of E.C. Act.
3. According to prosecution case, some miscreants are
said to have been involved in the theft of oil from has pipe line
of I.O.C.L.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
present case. He further submits that the petitioner is not named
in the FIR and his name has been transpired on the basis of the
confessional statement of the petitioner which was recorded in
Athmalgola P.S. Case No. 45 of 2024 and except the aforesaid,
nothing has come during investigation which suggest the
involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence. He
further submits that from perusal of the FIR it appears that the
date of occurrence is 02.01.2024 but the present FIR has been
instituted on 09.01.2024 i.e, after delay of seven days without
giving any explanation of the said delay. Apart from that no one
is the eye witness of the alleged occurrence and petitioner has
been made accused merely on the basis of his previous criminal
antecedents of similar nature. He further submits that the police
after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the
petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 22.03.2024 more
than two years.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19951 of 2026(3) dt.22-04-2026
3/4
5. The learned counsel for the IOC as well as learned
Additional Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the
prayer for bail of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner
carries 16 criminal antecedents other than the present one but
fairly submits that he is on bail in 12 cases out of 16.
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 District &
Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Barh, Patna in connection with S.
Tr. No. 1839 of 2025 arising out of Salimpur P.S. Case No. 03
of 2024, subject to the following conditions:-
i. Learned court below is directed to verify the
criminal antecedents of the petitioner and also verify whether
the petitioner is on bail in 12 cases or not before furnishing the
bail bond of the petitioner.
ii. 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.
iii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19951 of 2026(3) dt.22-04-2026
4/4
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iv. 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)
Vanisha/-
U T
Checking your session…