Patna High Court
Muntun KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
Bail was granted because the petitioner was not named in the FIR and no corroborative material existed beyond the co‑accused's confession.
Summary
Muntun Kumar was arrested on 9 January 2025 in connection with Patepur police case No.186 of 2024, an FIR dated 26 June 2024 for an offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code (robbery). The petitioner was not named in the FIR; his name surfaced only through the confessional statement of co‑accused Vikash Kumar, and no other corroborative material has been produced. The State opposed bail, citing five other pending cases, though the petitioner was already on bail in those matters. The court observed that the lack of direct accusation in the FIR and the absence of any material beyond the co‑accused’s confession did not justify continued detention. Consequently, the court granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions regarding cooperation, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of criminal antecedents.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when the petitioner is not named in the FIR and the only allegation arises from a co‑accused's confessional statement.
- Whether the existence of other pending criminal cases, albeit with bail already granted, impacts the bail application in the present case.
- Whether the lack of corroborative evidence beyond the confessional statement warrants release on bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 392
Subjects
- bail
- robbery
- Section 392 IPC
- confessional statement
- co‑accused
- verification of antecedents
- conditions of bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20484 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-186 Year-2024 Thana- PATEPUR District- Vaishali
======================================================
Muntun Kumar S/o Devendra Bhagat @ Devendra Bhandari R/o Village -
Chakmajahid, P.S - Mahua, District - Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Nachiketa Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajendra Singh Shastri, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 26-03-2026 Heard Mr.Nachiketa Jha, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.Rajendra Singh Shastri, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since
09.01.2025 in connection with Patepur P.S. Case No. 186 of
2024, F.I.R. dated 26.06.2024 registered for the offence
punishable under Section 392 of BNS.
3. The FIR of the occurrence of loot is against
unknown.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is not named in the FIR. The name of the
petitioner has been transpired during investigation on the
basis of the confessional statement of co-accused person,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20484 of 2026(2) dt.26-03-2026
2/4
namely, Vikash Kumar and except the aforesaid, no other
cogent material has come during investigation against the
petitioner to suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the
present occurrence and till date no TIP has been conducted by
the prosecution and co-accused person, namely, Vikash
Kumar, who has confessed the name of the petitioner, has
been bail by the learned court below itself and another co-
accused person, namely, Sunil Kumar has been granted bail
by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide order dated
20.01.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.634 of 2025 and the
police, after investigation, submitted the chargesheet against
the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since
09.01.2025.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that
the petitioner carries five more cases other than the present
one but fairly submits that the petitioner is on bail in all the
cases, as mentioned in para-3 of the bail petition.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, petitioner is not
named in the FIR, the name of the petitioner has been
transpired during investigation on the basis of the
confessional statement of co-accused person and till date no
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20484 of 2026(2) dt.26-03-2026
3/4
TIP has been conducted by the prosecution, 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 learned A.C.J.M.-XIII-cum-
Sub Judge-XIV, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with
Patepur P.S. Case No. 186 of 2024, with 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/her absence on two consecutive dates
without sufficient reason, his/her 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20484 of 2026(2) dt.26-03-2026
4/4
order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-
U T
Checking your session…