Patna High Court
Kundan Rai @ Kundan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The Court granted bail, holding that the petitioner’s detention was not justified in the absence of direct evidence linking him to the offence.
Summary
The petitioner, Kundan Rai, sought bail in a case registered as Matihani P.S. Case No.168 of 2025, which alleged offences under Sections 310(2) & 317(5) of the BNS and Sections 25(1‑Ba), 26 and 36 of the Arms Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner’s bike was used to snatch a bag containing cash, a laptop, a biometric machine and a cheque book, and that his name appeared in the FIR only through a co‑accused’s confessional statement. The petitioner contended that his name was not originally in the FIR, no material was recovered from him, and the bike’s registration details were unclear. The State opposed bail, citing a prior criminal antecedent. After hearing both sides, the Court found insufficient direct evidence against the petitioner and ordered his release on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite the FIR naming him only through a confessional statement.
- Whether the lack of direct recovery of incriminating material and unclear bike registration preclude continued detention.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent warrants denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1‑Ba), 26, 36
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 310(2), 317(5)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- arms act
- negotiable instruments
- confessional statement
- FIR
- judicial custody
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.31749 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-168 Year-2025 Thana- MATIHANI District- Begusarai
======================================================
Kundan Rai @ Kundan Kumar Son of Late Bino Rai Resident of Village-
Jagdishpur, P.S.- Lakho, District- Begusarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jai Kishor Poddar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 13-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection
with Matihani P.S. Case No.168 of 2025 registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 310(2) & 317(5) of the BNS
and under Sections 25(1-B)a, 26 and 36 of the Arms Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the
informant CSP centre from his home on a bike with a bag
containing Rs.2,29,000/-, H.P. Laptop, Biometric Machine and
PNB cheque book. It is alleged that unknown miscreants
snatched the bad and they ran towards Bahadarpur on same
bike.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has submitted that name of the petitioner is not there
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31749 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
2/3
in FIR. It has further been submitted that the name of this
petitioner has surfaced in this case during course of
investigation. Co-accused Amit has given his confessional
statement and name of this petitioner has surfaced during
investigation in the confessional statement of Amit. It has
further been submitted that save and except confessional
statement, there is nothing against petitioner. No recovery was
made from the possession of the petitioner. It has further been
submitted that from the perusal of the learned trial court it is
clear that one blue coloured Apache bike alleged to have been
used in the commission of offence belongs to the petitioner.
Countering this, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that it is not clear from the FIR as to what was the registration
number of the bike which was used in the offence. It is lastly
submitted that petitioner is in judicial custody since 10.09.2025.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP
for the State. He has submitted that petitioner is having criminal
antecedent of one case.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is
inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named
petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.31749 of 2026(2) dt.13-05-2026
3/3
bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties
of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the court of learned
District & Additional Sessions Judge-V, Begusarai in connection
with Matihani P.S. Case No.168 of 2025.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
Durgesh/-
Rohit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.