Patna High Court
Karn Kumar @ Karan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioner, finding the evidence insufficient to justify its denial.
Summary
Karn Kumar applied for bail in connection with Baruraj P.S. Case No. 129 of 2025, which alleges offences under Sections 303(2), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The police raid, prompted by a tip about stolen iron objects, recovered a tempo near the petitioner’s house and apprehended one co‑accused, Dharmendra Sahani, who identified the petitioner. The petitioner argued that apart from this identification and the proximity of the tempo, there is no material linking him to the crime, and that a prior case (No. 128 of 2025) similarly lacked evidence. The State contended that the recovery near the petitioner’s residence and the earlier investigation indicated his complicity. The Court, after considering the lack of substantive evidence, ordered the petitioner’s release on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, one of whom must be a close relative, and subject to Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The order emphasizes the principle that mere identification by a co‑accused without corroborative material does not justify denial of bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the co‑accused’s identification and the recovery of stolen goods near his residence.
- Whether the material on record is sufficient to establish prima facie case against the petitioner under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482(2)
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 303(2), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- evidence
- co‑accused testimony
- theft
- presumption of innocence
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2597 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-129 Year-2025 Thana- BARURAJ District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
Karn Kumar @ Karan Kumar, S/o- Ram Sagar Ray, R/v- Bhagwanpur, P.S.-
Baruraj, Dist- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 04-02-2026 Heard the parties.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Baruraj P.S. Case No. 129 of 2025 registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2), 317(2),
317(4), 317(5), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. In course of patrolling duty, the police on receipt of
a call that some persons are engaged in selling of stolen Iron
objects, raided the place of occurrence and when the informant
reached near the house of the petitioner, he found that a Tempo
was standing there and 5-6 persons were engaged in
buying/selling Iron objects. However, noticing the police party,
the accused persons succeeded in fleeing away, except one of
them, who disclosed his name as Dharmendra Sahani. The
apprehended person also disclosed the name of the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2597 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
2/3
along with others.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner taking this
Court through the F.I.R. contended that the name of the
petitioner has been disclosed by co-accused Dharmendra
Sahani, however, save and except the disclosure, as also the fact
that the Tempo was lying nearby the house of the petitioner, the
name of the petitioner has been implicated in this case.
Moreover, there is no other material suggesting the complicity
of the petitioner in the crime. Earlier also, the name of the
petitioner was implicated in Baruraj P.S. Case No. 128 of 2025,
based upon the suspicion of theft and only in order to solve the
earlier case, the recovery of stolen articles has been shown from
a tempo, which does not belong to the petitioner. Even if the
entire statement mentioned in the F.I.R. is taken into account, no
criminal liability has been fastened against the petitioner. The
petitioner undertakes that he will fully cooperate in the
proceeding of the court.
5. On the other hand, learned APP for the State
vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the
entire recovery has been made nearby the house of the petitioner
and earlier case instituted against him clearly suggests his
complicity in the crime.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2597 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
3/3
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by
the learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note
of the factum of recovery from a tempo, lying nearby the house
of the petitioner, besides no other materials against the
petitioner, let the petitioner, named above, in the event of his
arrest or surrender before the court below within four weeks
from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees
ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class (West),
Muzaffarpur in connection with Baruraj P.S. Case No. 129 of
2025, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482
(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the
further condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close
relative of the petitioner.
(Harish Kumar, J)
uday/-
U T
Checking your session…