Patna High Court
Shivam Kumar PandeyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The Court ordered that bail be granted to each petitioner on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The petitioners – Shivam Kumar Pandey, Deepak Kumar and Asik – were arrested on 9 October 2025 in connection with FIR No. 390 of 2025 alleging offences under Sections 304, 303(2), 318(4), 61(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 66(a) of the Income‑Tax Act, relating to the alleged theft of a mobile phone and the transfer of Rs 1,19,663 to the accounts of Deepak and Asik. The informant, Rinku Devi, claimed she received the money from the co‑accused but that her phone was not returned, and a compromise petition was filed on 9 October 2025. The petitioners sought bail, contending that the FIR was fabricated and that two of them had clean antecedents. The State opposed bail. The High Court, after considering the informant’s statement and the compromise petition, granted bail to each petitioner on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, appearance, non‑tampering with evidence, and verification of criminal antecedents.
Issues considered
- The appropriateness of granting bail for offences punishable under Sections 304, 303(2), 318(4), 61(2) of the Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 66(a) of the Income‑Tax Act.
- Whether the filing of a compromise petition and the informant’s receipt of the money affect the bail decision.
- Whether the petitioners’ prior criminal antecedents, if any, should influence bail.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 303(2), 304, 318(4), 61(2)
- Income Tax Act — s. 66(a)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- compromise petition
- sections 304
- section 303(2)
- section 318(4)
- section 61(2)
- section 66(a)
- informant
- theft
- mobile phone
- money transfer
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3268 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-390 Year-2025 Thana- MAIRWAN District- Siwan
======================================================
1. Shivam Kumar Pandey Son of Bashishtha Pandey @ Vashisth Pandey
Resident of Village - Harnathpur, P.S. - Mairwa, Dist.- Siwan.
2. Deepak Kumar Son of Surendra Sah R/o Village - Babhnouli, P.S. - Mairwa,
Dist. - Siwan.
3. Asik @ Ashiq Ansari Son of Ash Mohammad R/o Village - Babhnouli, P.S. -
Mairwa, Dist. - Siwan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y.C.Verma, Sr.Advocate
: Ms.Kumari Anupam, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Matloob Rab, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 21-01-2026 Heard Mr. Y.C.Verma, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Mr.Md. Matloob Rab, learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioners seeks bail, who is in custody since
09.10.2025 in connection with Mairwa P.S. Case No. 390 of
2025, F.I.R. dated 16.09.2025 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 304,303(2),318(4),61(2) of BNS and
66(a) I.T.Act.
3. According to prosecution case, two unknown
persons snatched the mobile phone of the informant and Rs.
1,19,663/- had been transferred from her account and the said
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3268 of 2026(2) dt.21-01-2026
2/4
amount has been credited to the account of two persons, namely,
Deepak Kumar and Asik.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that petitioner No.1 carries one more case other than the
present one and he is on bail in the said case, as mentioned in
paragraph-3 of the supplementary affidavit. Petitioner Nos.2 and
3 have clean antecedent. The allegation as alleged in the FIR is
false and fabricated and the petitioners have not committed any
offence as alleged in the FIR. Learned senior counsel for the
petitioners has drawn the attention in the impugned order which
suggests that the informant, namely, Rinku Devi was present
before the learned court below and she has stated that she has
received the amount from the co-accused person, namely, Asik
but she has also stated that co-accused persons have not returned
her mobile phone, apart from the aforesaid, both the parties have
filed a compromise petition before the learned court below itself
on 09.10.2025 itself. Informant herself stated that she has
received the amount in question from the co-accused persons
and the police, after investigation, submitted chargesheet against
the petitioners and the petitioners are in custody since
09.10.2025.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the prayer
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3268 of 2026(2) dt.21-01-2026
3/4
for bail of the petitioners.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and the informant
has received the amount in question from the co-accused
persons, let the petitioners, above named, be released on bail on
furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand)each with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of
learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Siwan in connection with
Mairwa P.S. Case No. 390 of 2025, with the following
conditions:-
(I) Petitioners shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court
and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and
on their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.
(II) If the petitioners tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move
for cancellation of bail.
(III) And, further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at
any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed their
criminal antecedents, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. However, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3268 of 2026(2) dt.21-01-2026
4/4
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Nitesh/-
U T
Checking your session…