Patna High Court
Nitesh TiwariversusThe state of bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the allegations against the petitioner were substantiated and a Section 82 process was already in place.
Summary
Nitesh Tiwari was implicated in a FIR alleging robbery at gunpoint, offences under Sections 392, 397 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, with an alleged attempt to kill an informant. He applied for anticipatory bail, claiming he was falsely implicated, that his name appeared only in a co‑accused’s confessional statement, that he was not arrested at the scene and that he has a clean antecedent. The State opposed the bail, asserting his direct involvement in the dacoity and noting that a process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. had already been issued against him. The Court examined the FIR and the case diary, found the allegations against the petitioner substantiated and observed that the Section 82 process was pending. Consequently, the Court declined to grant anticipatory bail. The petition for anticipatory bail was therefore rejected.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner given the allegations of robbery at gunpoint and the pending process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 82
- Indian Penal Code — s. 392, 397, 427
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- robbery
- arms act
- IPC
- Criminal Procedure Code
- false implication
- dacoity
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22417 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-180 Year-2019 Thana- MINAPUR District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Nitesh Tiwari (M), aged about 33 years, S/O Arun Kumar Tiwari @ Sudama
Tiwari, R/o vill.- Paharpur Chak Ahlad, P.S- Sahebganj, Dist.- Muzaffarpur,
Bihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The state of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND
MALVIYA
ORAL ORDER
2 08-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 392, 397
and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms
Act.
3. As per allegation in the FIR, it is a case of road
robbery at the gun point of pistol with an attempt to kill the
informant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He next
submits that the name of the petitioner has been figured on the
confessional statement of co-accused, namely, Dharamnath
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22417 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026
2/2
Kumar, the petitioner was not arrested at the spot and he has got
clean antecedent as stated in para-3 of the petition.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct
involvement for commission of dacoity against the petitioner.
6. On perusal of the first information report and
impugned order dated 10.02.2026, it appears that from paras
no.01 to 107 of the case diary, the allegation against the
petitioner relates to commission of robbery at gun point of pistol
with a view to kill him and also appears that process under
Section 82 of the Cr.P.C has already been issued against him, so
I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the
petitioner is hereby rejected.
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Brajesh Kumar/-
U T
Checking your session…