Patna High Court
Abhishek MongiyaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that bail could not be granted as the petitioner was implicated as a lookout, there was material evidence from the co‑accused, and his out‑of‑state residence posed a flight risk.
Summary
The petitioner, Abhishek Mongiya, applied for regular bail in a case registered as Karpi P.S. Case No. 180/2025 involving alleged theft of Rs. 18 lakhs from a bank. The prosecution alleges that three miscreants, including the petitioner acting as a lookout, stole the money while the cashier was on a mobile call. The petitioner contends he has been falsely implicated, no incriminating articles were found on him, and he has no prior criminal record. The State’s Additional Public Prosecutor counters that the co‑accused recovered Rs. 8 lakhs and, in a self‑inculpatory statement, identified the petitioner as the lookout. Considering the alleged involvement, the material evidence from the co‑accused, and the petitioner’s residence in Madhya Pradesh indicating a flight risk, the Court refused bail. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 303(2) of the B.N.S. given the allegations of involvement as a lookout
- Whether the co‑accused’s self‑inculpatory statement and recovered proceeds constitute sufficient material to deny bail
- Whether the petitioner’s out‑of‑state residence and potential flight risk justify refusal of bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 303(2)
Subjects
- bail
- Section 303(2)
- theft
- bank robbery
- false implication
- criminal procedure
- flight risk
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22118 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-180 Year-2025 Thana- KARPI District- Arwal
======================================================
Abhishek Mongiya Son of Saka @ Saka Mongiya Resident of Village- Datiya
Prakash Nagar, P.S.- Civil Lines Datiyaand, Distt.- Datiya, State- Madhya
Pradesh
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Amaresh Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ram Sevak Choudhary, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 08-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Karpi
P.S. Case No. 180/2025 registered for the offences punishable
under Section 303(2) of B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution case, three miscreants
committed theft of about Rs. 18 lakhs from a bank when the
cashier was talking with someone on a mobile phone.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case. No
incriminating articles has been recovered from his possession.
Learned counsel further submits that he has no criminal
antecedent and he is in custody since 06.12.2025. The petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22118 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
2/2
undertakes to co-operate in the case/ trial.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer
for regular bail of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner
was keeping a watch and when he saw that the cashier was
talking on a phone then he signalled someone and other co-
accused escaped with the money. A sum of Rs. 8 lakhs has been
recovered from the co-accused, who has named the petitioner in
his self-inculpatory statement.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts as well as the fact
that the petitioner is the resident of Madhya Pradesh and has
come to Bihar to commit crime, this Court is not inclined to
grant bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
tusharika/-
U T
Checking your session…