Patna High Court
Anand KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
Holding
The Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Anand Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after being named in a theft case (PS‑226/2025) under Sections 331(4) and 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The prosecution alleged that on 9 September 2025 unknown miscreants broke into the informant’s house, stole valuables and fled, during which the informant identified the petitioner and co‑accused Pradeep Kumar. The co‑accused, in a confessional statement, named the petitioner as a participant and some stolen items were recovered based on his disclosure. The petitioner claimed innocence, citing a personal dispute with the informant and lack of any material found in his possession, though he has a prior similar criminal antecedent. The State argued that the identification, confessional statement and prior record justified denial of bail. The Court, after considering these factors, declined to grant anticipatory bail, rejecting the petitioner’s prayer.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner despite identification by the informant and a confessional statement of the co‑accused
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent and the nature of the offence preclude the grant of anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 305, 331(4)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- identification
- confessional statement
- criminal antecedent
- theft
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Section 331
- Section 305
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.3710 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-226 Year-2025 Thana- DARPA District- East Champaran
======================================================
Anand Kumar S/o Paras Prasad Chaurasiya Resident of Village - Gamhariya
Kala, P.S - Darpa, District - East Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prateek Tandon, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Surendra Kumar, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
5 21-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in
connection with Darpa P.S. Case No. 226 of 2025 registered
under Sections 331(4) and 305 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 09.09.2025 at
about 04:30 A.M., some unknown miscreants entered in the
house of the informant and committed theft of ornaments, cash
and mobile. Informant identified petitioner and co-accused
Pradeep Kumar while they were fleeing away.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner
is that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in
the present case due to previous enmity and village politics.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3710 of 2026(5) dt.21-04-2026
2/3
Further submission is that petitioner and informant are next door
neighbours and there is dispute between them regarding
drainage. No incriminating material has been recovered from
the conscious possession of the petitioner. Petitioner has got one
criminal antecedent of similar nature in which he is on bail. He
undertakes to cooperate in the investigation and trial.
5. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State
and learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer for
bail by contending that petitioner is named accused and there is
direct allegation against him that he along with co-accused
persons burgled the house of the informant. Co-accused Pradeep
Kumar in his confessional statement has stated the name of the
petitioner and accepted the complicity of the petitioner in the
crime. From perusal of para-13 of the case diary, it transpires
that as per disclosure of co-accused Pradeep Kumar, some stolen
articles have been recovered and the same has been handed over
to the informant. It is further contended that informant herself
identified the petitioner while he was fleeing away with co-
accused Pradeep Kumar after committing theft. Petitioner has
got one criminal antecedent of similar nature. Hence, he does
not deserve to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.
6. Having considered that the informant has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.3710 of 2026(5) dt.21-04-2026
3/3
identified the petitioner and co-accused on spot while fleeing
away after committing theft, recovery of stolen items on
confessional statement of co-accused, who also admitted the
involvement of petitioner in the offence and also criminal
antecedent of similar nature, this Court is not inclined to grant
anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for bail of
the petitioner is rejected.
(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
utkarsh/-
U T
Checking your session…