Patna High Court
Surya Prakash Kumar @ Shiv Prakash KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- RAJIV ROY
Holding
Anticipatory bail was not granted as the facts did not justify its issuance.
Summary
The petitioner, Surya Prakash Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a robbery and dacoity case (IPC §§395, 397) stemming from an incident where a co‑driver was injured by gunfire and cash and a mobile phone were stolen. The prosecution’s case is based on a confession by co‑accused Chhotan Kumar, who named the petitioner among the perpetrators. The petitioner argued he has no prior criminal record and was implicated solely on the basis of the confessional statement, denying any involvement in the shooting. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offences and the alleged participation in the robbery and assault. The Court held that the circumstances did not warrant anticipatory bail and rejected the application, though it indicated that bail could be considered if the petitioner surrenders within four weeks.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under CrPC Section 438 in view of the allegations under IPC Sections 395 and 397.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438
- Indian Penal Code — s. 395, 397
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- IPC 395
- IPC 397
- robbery
- dacoity
- criminal procedure
- bail jurisdiction
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29423 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-7 Year-2024 Thana- DORIGANJ District- Saran
======================================================
Surya Prakash Kumar @ Shiv Prakash Kumar S/o- Om Praksh Kumar Vill-
Raipur Bindgawan PS-Doriganj Dist- Saran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sushil Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 18-05-2026 Heard the parties through virtual mode.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Doriganj P.S. Case No. 07 of 2024 registered
for the offence punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of the
Indian Penal Code, lodged on 09.01.2024 by the informant Ravi
Sharma.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that when alongwith the Truck proceeded to Koilwar for loading
the sand from Sone River, as he got down to attend nature’s
call, heard the cry of the co-driver and on reaching there saw
that he has been surrounded and is relieved of the mobile as also
cash. As he reached the place, the accused persons opened fire
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29423 of 2026(2) dt.18-05-2026
2/3
causing injury to the co-driver. However, he caught hold of the
miscreants which followed the scuffle but they succeeded in
injuring him and took away Rs.15,000/- as also a mobile phone.
This led to the F.I.R.
4. As the story subsequently unfold, one of the
accused Chhotan Kumar was arrested by the Police and he gave
the name of the other accused persons, the petitioner included,
in that background, he got implicated.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he
is a young boy having no criminal antecedent and only on the
basis of wrong confessional statement got implicated. Further,
the allegation of opening fire is not on this petitioner, Chhotan
Kumar was actively involved but now he is out of jail.
6. Learned APP on the other hand opposes the prayer
submitting that not only there is allegation of taking away cash
and mobile, in the process, the co-driver was assaulted/injured
by opening of fire.
7. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
as also the facts that have incorporated above, no case of
anticipatory bail is made out.
8. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected.
9. However, if the petitioner surrenders in next four
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.29423 of 2026(2) dt.18-05-2026
3/3
weeks and prays for bail, the same be considered on the point
raised by the petitioner at the time of bail which be disposed of,
at an earliest.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.