Patna High Court
Rajan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court denied bail to the petitioner, finding that the circumstances warranted continued detention.
Summary
Rajan Kumar was arrested in connection with a robbery in which eight accused on three motorcycles allegedly stopped a vehicle, threatened the driver with a gun and stole a bag containing Rs.6,31,000. The FIR was initially filed against unknown persons, but during investigation the petitioner was identified from CCTV footage and arrested along with co‑accused Rahmat and Rafique. The petitioner, who has a prior case and has been in custody since 1 December 2025, sought regular bail for offences under Sections 310(2), 126(2), 317(2), 61(2) of the BNS and Sections 25(1‑b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. The prosecution opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the road‑robbery, the recovery of the stolen money, weapons and motorcycles, and the risk of tampering with evidence. The Court, after hearing both sides, found the circumstances warranted continued detention and rejected the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail despite the seriousness of the robbery and arms offences.
- Whether the evidence, including CCTV identification and recovery of stolen property, justifies denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 35
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments (or relevant Bihar statute) (BNS) — s. 126(2), 310(2), 317(2), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- robbery
- arms offences
- cctv evidence
- criminal procedure
- detention
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24295 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-117 Year-2025 Thana- MAHESHKHUNT District- Khagaria
======================================================
Rajan Kumar Son of Ajay Yadav Resident of Village and P.O.- Usari, P.S.-
Gogri, District - Khagaria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Piyush Saurav, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Pushpa Sinha, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 12-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 310(2), 126(2), 317(2) and
61(2) of the BNS as well as Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the
Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of one case and is in custody since
01.12.2025 and the informant alleges that eight accused persons
on three motorcycles came and stopped the Toto and, on point
of gun, snatched his bag containing Rs.6,31,000/-.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR
was against unknown and name of the petitioner transpired
during the course of investigation. It is further submitted that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24295 of 2026(2) dt.12-05-2026
2/3
during investigation, the Investigating Officer of the case claims
to have investigated the CCTV footage in which petitioner along
with other accused was identified based on which Rahmat,
Rafique and petitioner were arrested. It is next submitted that
based on disclosure of Rahmat, arms, cartridges along with the
looted blue bag was recovered. Further, based on the disclosure
of Rafique and petitioner, blue and black Splendor Motorcycle
used in the crime were recovered.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is not the owner of the seized vehicle and it was
Rahmat along with others who were involved in the occurrence
and it was based on the disclosure made by Rahmat, the
snatched bag was recovered. It is further submitted that
informant in the FIR alleges that he can identify the accused
persons but then the petitioner was not put on TIP. It is next
submitted that charges against the petitioner stand framed.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant
opposed the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner and submits
that it is a case of road robbery which has become rampant in
the State of Bihar and based on the CCTV footage, the case was
investigated and thereafter accused were apprehended and based
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24295 of 2026(2) dt.12-05-2026
3/3
on their disclosure, several articles involved in the occurrence
were recovered including the motorcycle and the blue bag
containing Rs.6,31,000/-.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail in
connection with Maheshkhunt P.S. Case No. 117 of 2025
pending in the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial
Magistrate, Khagaria/Successor Court.
8. Hence, the prayer for bail is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Kundan/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.