Patna High Court
Ravi Shankar KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that in the absence of any incriminating material and with only a co‑accused’s disclosure, the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Ravi Shankar Kumar, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a robbery case (Fatuha P.S. Case No. 657 of 2020) under Section 392 IPC. The prosecution alleged that a tempo was stolen by four unknown persons and the petitioner was implicated solely on the basis of his prior criminal antecedents and a mention by co‑accused Rahul @ Vikky. The petitioner argued that no incriminating material was recovered from him and that the FIR was against unknown persons. The State opposed bail, citing the petitioner’s two similar prior offences. The Court, noting the lack of material evidence and that the only link was the co‑accused’s disclosure, granted anticipatory bail with conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS, requiring a bail bond, sureties, and compliance with several behavioural conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail despite prior similar criminal antecedents?
- Whether a mere mention by a co‑accused in the absence of material evidence suffices to deny anticipatory bail?
- Whether the FIR against unknown persons can be used to justify the petitioner’s arrest?
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 251(1-b)a, 26, 35
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 392, 411, 414
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- robbery
- section 392 IPC
- criminal antecedent
- bail conditions
- co‑accused disclosure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27477 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-657 Year-2020 Thana- FATUA District- Patna
======================================================
Ravi Shankar Kumar, Son of Ratan Paswan, R/o Beldarichak, P.S.-
Gaurichak, Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N A Shamsi, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 13-05-2026 Heard Mr. N. A. Shamsi, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending her arrest in
connection with Fatuha P.S. Case No. 657 of 2020 for the
offence punishable under sections 392 IPC lodged on
13.09.2020 by the informant.
3. As per the prosecution case, the tempo bearing
Registration No. BR 01PJ 6553 has allegedly been snatched by
four unknown criminals.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
FIR is against unknown and the petitioner has falsely been
implicated in this only on the basis his criminal antecedent as he
was taken into custody in Fatuha P.S. Case No. 02 of 2021
registered under Sections 411 and 414 of the Penal Code, along
with section 251 (1-b) a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. It has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27477 of 2026(3) dt.13-05-2026
2/3
further been stated that except the confession statement of co-
accused, namely, Rahul @ Vikky who has disclosed his name
during the course of investigation, nothing incriminating is said
to have been recovered from the constructive possession of the
petitioner. It has further been fairly submitted that the petitioner
has got two criminal antecedent being similar in nature but in
both of the cases, as mentioned in para-3 of the instant petition,
is on bail.
5. On the contrary, learned APP vehemently opposed
the prayer for anticipatory bail by submitting that the petitioner
has got two similar nature of criminal antecedents under his
belt.
6. Considering the fact that name of the petitioner has
come on the disclosure of one co-accused Rahul @ Vikky while
nothing incriminating is said to have been recovered from the
petitioner, this Court is inclined to extend him the privilege of
anticipatory bail.
7. Let the petitioner, above named, be released on
bail in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of six
weeks from the receipt of this order, on furnishing bail bond of
Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of like amount
each to the satisfaction of A.C.J.M., Patna City in connection
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27477 of 2026(3) dt.13-05-2026
3/3
with aforesaid PS Case, subject to the conditions as laid down
under Section 482(2) of the BNSS as well as the following
conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the
family member/relative of the petitioner(s)
who shall provide official document to show
his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear
on each and every date before the Trial
Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason
will entail cancellation of his bail bond by
the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no
way try to induce or promise or threat the
witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to
take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist
from committing any criminal offence again,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to
take steps for cancellation of his bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
Perwez/suryadev
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.