Patna High Court
PANKAJ PARMAR @ PANKAJ KUMARversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Constable Pankaj Parmar, sought bail in a case registered under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code for alleged robbery of a Hyundai i10. He contended that he was falsely implicated due to a property dispute with his uncle, a Sub‑Inspector, and that he was on duty at the DG’s residence at the time of the alleged incident. The State opposed bail, relying on a co‑accused’s confessional statement linking the petitioner to the theft of cash, mobiles and jewellery, and highlighted the petitioner’s prior criminal record. The court examined the seriousness of the robbery charge, the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence, and the petitioner’s antecedents. Considering the gravity of the offence and the criminal antecedent, the court rejected the petitioner's bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of robbery under IPC 395 given the alleged false implication and his criminal antecedent.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 395
Subjects
- bail
- robbery
- IPC 395
- false implication
- criminal antecedent
- police officer
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26353 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-798 Year-2021 Thana- GARKHA District- Saran
======================================================
Pankaj Parmar @ Pankaj Kumar S/O Nar Narayan Singh @ Narayan Singh
R/O Village- Amsari, P.S- Murari, Distt.- Buxar (BIHAR) ... Petitioner/S
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Superintendent Of Police, Saran At Chapra. Bihar
3. The S.H.O Of Garkha Police Station, Saran. Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Akash Kumar Mishra
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Manoj Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
9 05-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered for
the offence punishable under section 395 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3. As per prosecution case, five unknown accused
persons, pretending themselves to be CID officials, stopped
informant’s Hundai i10 car and in course of searching the
vehicle, took mobile phones, ornaments and cash and fled away.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner is a constable. He has falsely been
implicated in this case during course of investigation on account
of dispute of property between he and his uncle, who is also a
Sub Inspector of Police in other police station. At the relevant
time, petitioner was on duty at the residence of DG of BSAP
and he was not present on the spot.
5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer
for bail. He submits that petitioner’s name has come in this case
during course of investigation on the basis of confessional
statement of co-accused. It has come during investigation that
petitioner and other accused persons, looted cash, mobile
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26353 of 2024(9) dt.05-02-2026
2/2
phones and jewelry of informant, while he was returning to
Kolkata after closing his business activity. Petitioner has got
criminal antecedent.
6. Considering the nature and gravity of accusation
and criminal antecedent of the petitioner, prayer for bail of the
petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashi/-
U T
Checking your session…