Patna High Court
Ramesh MistryversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that anticipatory bail should be granted as the petitioner’s involvement is not substantiated by material evidence and he has a clean antecedent.
Summary
The petitioner, Ramesh Mistry, feared arrest in a case concerning the theft of four batteries from a Jio tower site, an offence registered under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The prosecution’s case relied on a written report by a technician and a confessional statement of co‑accused Golu Kumar that implicated the petitioner, with no other incriminating material. The petitioner asserted his innocence, highlighted his clean antecedent, and argued that the allegation rested solely on the co‑accused’s confession. The Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the anticipatory bail application. Considering the lack of substantive evidence and the petitioner’s clean record, the Court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, subject to specified conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the only evidence against the petitioner is a confessional statement of a co‑accused
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and absence of other incriminating material justify bail under Section 438 CrPC
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 303(2)
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
- theft
- Section 303
- Section 438
- Section 482
- battery theft
- Indian criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3378 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-263 Year-2025 Thana- PAKARIBARAW District- Nawada
======================================================
Ramesh Mistry S/o Bhaso Mistry Resident of Village- Dharampur, P.S.-
Sikandra, District- Jamui
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sheo Kumar Prasad
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Uday Pratap Singh
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 20-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Pakribrawan P.S. Case No.263 of 2025, F.I.R
dated 05.07.2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, Amit Kumar, who
works as a Technician in Jio Tower Company, submitted a
written report to the concerned police officer. He stated that Ajit
Kumar informed him that the site PKBR-ENB-600 was down.
Upon visiting the site, he found that the lock was open and four
batteries (Serial Nos. 13470438, 1300916, 16130237, and
18300104) were missing. Thereafter, he lodged the case with the
police.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3378 of 2026(3) dt.20-02-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the
present case and the name of the petitioner has transpired on the
basis of confessional statement of co-accused Golu Kumar and
there is no incriminating material to suggest the involvement of
the petitioner in the said offence. The petitioner has clean
antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that the name of the petitioner has transpired on the basis of
confessional statement of co-accused Golu Kumar and there is
no incriminating material to suggest the involvement of the
petitioner in the said offence and the petitioner has clean
antecedent. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the
privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of
his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M-IInd, Nawada, in connection
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3378 of 2026(3) dt.20-02-2026
3/3
with Pakribrawan P.S. Case No.263 of 2025, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the family
member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide
official document/personal affidavit 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/her/their 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 their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
sharun/-
U T
Checking your session…