Patna High Court
Sant Kumar Das @ Sant Das @ Sant RavidasversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC, subject to bond and surety conditions and verification of his antecedents.
Summary
The petitioner, Sant Kumar Das, sought anticipatory bail after his name was implicated in a robbery case (Section 394 IPC) based solely on a confessional statement of a co‑accused, Vipin Kumar Das. He argued that no material was recovered from him, he has a clean antecedent, and a similarly situated co‑accused had been granted anticipatory bail in a related matter. The State opposed the relief, contending that the confession of a co‑accused was sufficient ground to deny bail. The Court examined the investigation records, noted that the petitioner’s name did not appear in the First Informant Report and that the only basis was the co‑accused’s confession, and considered his clean record. Relying on the principles of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court granted anticipatory bail subject to a cash bond, sureties and verification of his antecedents. The order also stipulated that bail could be cancelled if the petitioner is found to have concealed any prior criminal history.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the accusation is based solely on a co‑accused’s confessional statement
- Whether the petitioner’s clean antecedent and lack of material recovery justify bail under Section 438 CrPC
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 438
- Indian Penal Code — s. 394
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- confessional statement
- clean antecedent
- Section 394 IPC
- Section 438 CrPC
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35698 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-202 Year-2024 Thana- LAXMIPUR District- Jamui
======================================================
Sant Kumar Das @ Sant Das @ Sant Ravidas S/o Sahdeo Ravidas Resident of
Village - Teliyadih, P.S. - Jhajha, District - Jamui.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Narsingh Tanti, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 25-05-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Laxmipur P.S. Case No.202 of 2024, for allegedly having
committed offence under Section 394 of Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution story, which has been lodged
on the basis of the written report submitted by the informant, to
the effect that on 07.06.2024 at about 13:50 hours, while the
informant was going to Anantpur Bank from Tal Jhari with
collection officer Dharmendra Ravidas after collection of
money, a white coloured Swift Dezire car overtook him and
stopped him. Some persons came out of the car, wearing masks,
started assaulting the informant with lathi and danda and when
the informant’s colleague, namely, Dharmendra Ravidas came
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35698 of 2026(2) dt.25-05-2026
2/4
for his rescue, two more persons, having covered their faces
with masks came out of the car. One of them was armed with
pistol and he put the same on the informant’s head and snatched
the mobile phone, key of bike and cash to the tune of
Rs.17,750/- along with some other documents. The accused
persons fled away towards Guguldih by car.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has not
committed any offence. The name of the petitioner transpired in
the present case on the basis of the confessional statement made
by co-accused Vipin Kumar Das. Nothing has been recovered
from the petitioner and petitioner has got a clean antecedent.
The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that
similarly situated co-accused Lalan Das @ Lalan has been
granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by a Hon’ble Single
Judge of this court vide order dated 20.06.2025, passed in
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 33973 of 2025.
5. Per Contra, the learned APP appearing on behalf of
the state opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner
and submits that the name of the petitioner transpired on the
basis of confessional statement made by one of the co-accused
and petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35698 of 2026(2) dt.25-05-2026
3/4
bail.
6. Having heard the rival submissions and after going
through the records, it appears that the petitioner was not named
in the First Informant Report. His name transpired during course
of investigation on the basis of confessional statement given by
co-accused, Vipin Kumar Das. Further, one of the co-accused,
namely, Lalan Das @ Lalan has been granted the privilege of
anticipatory bail by a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
vide order dated 20.06.2025, passed in Criminal Miscellaneous
No. 33973 of 2025. Further, the petitioner has got a clean
antecedent.
7. Taking into consideration the facts aforesaid, let the
petitioner, above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender
within a period of six weeks, be released on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
District & Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Jamui in connection
with Laxmipur P.S. Case No.202 of 2024, subject to the
conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. with a
further condition that:-
The learned court concerned shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35698 of 2026(2) dt.25-05-2026
4/4
that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the
court concerned shall take steps for cancellation of bail bond of
the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bond in terms of
the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of
or in the name of verification.
(Ritesh Kumar, J.)
Sanjay/Shital
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.