Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Nawneet KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The anticipatory bail application was rejected.

Summary

The petitioner, Nawneet Kumar, was implicated in a 2022 FIR alleging theft and robbery of electric materials from Ashoka Buildcon Limited, under IPC sections 379, 420 and 34. Fearing arrest, he applied for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The State opposed, noting that the FIR was four years old and that an anticipatory bail application had already been rejected by the Sessions Judge in 2024. The Court observed that the considerable delay and the prior rejection precluded any relief in the present application. Consequently, the anticipatory bail was denied, but the Court directed the petitioner to surrender within four weeks and then file a regular bail application for prompt consideration.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail can be granted after a prolonged delay since the FIR and after a prior rejection by the Sessions Court
  • Whether the court may extend relief in view of the passage of time and the nature of the allegations

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • delay
  • Criminal Procedure Code
  • Indian Penal Code
  • theft
  • robbery
  • bail rejection
  • surrender

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31342 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-81 Year-2022 Thana- DARIHAT District- Rohtas
                 ======================================================
                 Nawneet Kumar Son of Gurudev Thakur R/O Village - Olha, P.O.- Mehta
                 Tola, P.S.- Harsiddhi, District - East Champaran.
                                                                          ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                       Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                   ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Amit Kumar Pandey, Advocate
                 For the State            :        Mr. Satya Nand Shukla, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   07-05-2026                    Heard the parties.

                                 2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in

                   connection with Darihat P.S. Case No. 81 of 2022 registered for

                   the offence punishable under Sections 379, 420 and 34 of the

                   Indian Penal Code, lodged on 24.04.2022 by the informant

                   Santosh Tiwari.

                                 3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged

                   that while working with the Ashoka Buildcon Limited, electric

                   materials were loaded on the Tractor from the Ashoka Buildcon

                   Limited store located at Sasaram and departed for Dharhara, it

                   reached there and as it was evening time, unloading could not

                   took place. However, in the morning, one of the Tractor was

                   missing and despite several attempt, this petitioner could not be

                   contacted. This led to the F.I.R.

                                 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

                   petitioner is a labour and tie up with the informant who had not
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31342 of 2026(2) dt.07-05-2026
                                                        2/2




                      given certain pending amounts and only due to enmity, the

                      implication.

                                   5. Learned APP on the other hand opposes the prayer

                      submitting that the F.I.R. is of the year 2022, the anticipatory

                      bail of the petitioner was rejected in the year 2024 by the

                      learned Sessions Judge and four years from the lodging of the

                      F.I.R., two years after the rejection of the anticipatory bail, the

                      present case.

                                   6. Taking into account the aforesaid submission of the

                      parties as also the allegation that has come against the petitioner,

                      couple with the delay, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.

                                   7. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

                                   8. However, if the petitioner surrenders within a

                      period of four weeks, files bail application, the court concerned

                      shall consider the matter and dispose it of preferably on the

                      same day.



                                                     (Rajiv Roy, J)
vinayak/-

U      T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.