Patna High Court
Shivam Kumar @ Shivam GuptaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court directed that the petitioner be released on regular bail upon furnishing the prescribed bond, subject to the trial court’s discretion to cancel the bail if the trial is delayed.
Summary
The petitioner, Shivam Kumar, was arrested in connection with a robbery on 3 February 2025 and charged under Section 309(4) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023. He has been in custody since 1 May 2025 and his alleged involvement was disclosed in the confessional statement of co‑accused Dheeraj Kumar, who, along with Amit Kumar, had earlier been granted regular bail by the Patna High Court. The petitioner’s counsel argued that, since bail had been granted to the co‑accused and no incriminating article was recovered from the petitioner, he should likewise be released on bail. The State opposed, contending that the confessional statements directly implicated the petitioner, that looted items were recovered from the co‑accused, and that the petitioner has two prior cases, raising a risk of absconding. After hearing both sides, the Court held that, because charges against the petitioner had been framed, he is entitled to regular bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs 25,000 with two sureties of equal amount. The order also conditioned the bail on the trial court’s power to cancel it if the petitioner attempts to delay the trial. The bail order was directed to be implemented by the trial court handling PS‑Motihari Mufassil Case No. 60 of 2025.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite being implicated through a co‑accused’s confessional statement and having antecedent cases.
- Whether the framing of charges against the petitioner precludes the grant of bail.
- Whether the bail granted to co‑accused creates a parity obligation for the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 — s. 309(4)
Subjects
- regular bail
- confessional statement
- antecedent cases
- charges framed
- Section 309(4)
- robbery
- Criminal Procedure Code
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2147 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2025 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Shivam Kumar @ Shivam Gupta Son of Rambabu Sah Resident of Village -
Kauahan, P.S. - Govindganj, District - East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Balgovind Sharma, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 21-04-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offence punishable under Section 309(4) of the BNS, 2023.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of two cases and is in custody since
01.05.2025 and the informant alleges that he along with his
friend on 03.02.2025, at 04:00 p.m., were going to Motihari
from Gorakhpur, when a Bolero dashed the motorcycle from
behind and from the Bolero two accused alighted and, on the
point of pistol, snatched their mobile and Rs.2,000/- along with
the motorcycle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR
was against unknown and the name of the petitioner transpired
in the confessional statement of Dheeraj Kumar. It is further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2147 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
2/4
submitted that Dheeraj Kumar had approached this Court
seeking regular bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 41133 of 2025 and
the same came to be allowed vide order dated 27.06.2025
passed by a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court. Similarly,
Amit Kumar, whose name transpired in the confession of
Dheeraj Kumar, also approached this Court seeking regular bail
by filing Cr. Misc. No. 32086 of 2025 and the same also came to
be allowed vide order dated 22.05.2025 by a learned Coordinate
Bench of this Court. It is, thus, submitted that the name of this
petitioner also transpired in the confessional statement of
Dheeraj Kumar and since Dheeraj Kumar and Amit Kumar have
been granted the privilege of regular bail by the learned
Coordinate Bench of this Court, hence, maintaining parity, the
petitioner should also be released on bail.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes
the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submits that
during the course of investigation, the looted mobile was
recovered from Dheeraj Kumar and Dheeraj Kumar disclosed
that the occurrence on 03.02.2025 was committed by him along
with other accused persons including the petitioner. Further,
Dheeraj Kumar and Amit Kumar confessed about their
participation in the crime along with the petitioner and the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2147 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
3/4
looted motorcycle was also recovered at the instance of the
apprehended accused. Learned A.P.P. next submits that from
perusal of the order dated 27.06.2025 in Cr. Misc. No. 41133 of
2025, it would manifest that the same records that no
incriminating article was recovered from possession of Dheeraj
Kumar when the looted mobile was recovered from the
possession of his mother who had disclosed that the said mobile
was given to her by Dheeraj Kumar. It is also submitted that
even the looted motorcycle was recovered at the instance of the
apprehended accused but then it appears that the correct facts
were not placed before the learned Coordinate Bench of this
Court when the regular bail application of Dheeraj Kumar and
Amit Kumar was being argued. It is further submitted that
petitioner has antecedent of two cases and if the privilege of
regular bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may
abscond.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner
reiterates and submits that name of the petitioner transpired
based on the confessional statement of apprehended accused but
then nothing was recovered from possession of the petitioner
and charges against him have been framed and Dheeraj Kumar,
Amit Kumar and others have been granted the privilege of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2147 of 2026(2) dt.21-04-2026
4/4
regular bail.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
since charges against the petitioner have been framed, as such,
the petitioner, above-named, is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Trial Court where the case is pending
in connection with Motihari Mufassil P.S. Case No. 60 of 2025.
8. However, it is made clear that if the learned Trial
Court comes to a conclusion that the petitioner, after his release
on bail, is trying to delay the trial of the case in any manner, the
learned Trial Court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of
the petitioner.
9. It is further made clear that the learned Trial Court
will verify as to whether charges against the petitioner have
been framed or not and if it is found that charges have not been
framed in that event the present bail order shall not be given
effect to.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…