Patna High Court
Guddu @ Manish RajversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that bail must be granted due to insufficient identification of the seized articles, the FIR transmission delay, and the petitioner’s clean antecedent.
Summary
Guddu @ Manish Raj, the petitioner, feared arrest in a theft case (Alamganj P.S. Case No.617 of 2025) under Sections 334(1) and 305(a) of the BNS. The prosecution alleged that three accused stole goods worth Rs.2 lakh from a utensil shop and, based on a co‑accused’s statement, searched the petitioner’s father’s shop, recovering articles that were not subjected to a Test Identification Parade (TIP). The petitioner argued that he was not named in the FIR, the recovered items were his father’s stock, there was a delay in transmitting the FIR to the court, and he had a clean antecedent. The State opposed bail, contending that the recovery indicated the petitioner’s involvement. The Court, noting the absence of TIP, the FIR transmission delay, and the petitioner’s clean record, granted bail subject to a bond and sureties, with conditions under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted in view of the lack of a Test Identification Parade for the recovered articles.
- Whether the delay in transmitting the FIR to the jurisdictional court warrants bail.
- Whether the petitioner can be implicated despite not being named in the FIR.
Legislation cited
- Bihar Negotiable Sale (BNS) — s. 305(a), 334(1)
- Bihar Negotiable Sale (BNSS) — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- bail
- theft
- identification parade
- FIR delay
- clean antecedent
- Section 334
- Section 305
- Section 482
- Bihar
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39092 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-617 Year-2025 Thana- ALAMGANJ District- Patna
======================================================
Guddu @ Manish Raj S/o Krishna Prasad Resident of Village- Sakari Gali
Near Durga Mandir, P.S.- Alamganj, District- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deovind Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 17-06-2026 Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Alamganj P.S. Case No.617 of 2025 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 334(1) and 305(a) of the
BNS.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant
runs a utensil shop and on the fateful morning, when he reached
his shop, he found that the locks of his shop were broken and
several articles to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs had been stolen. Upon
making enquiries from the nearby residents/shopkeepers, he
came to learn that three named accused persons had allegedly
committed the theft in his shop.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39092 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
2/3
the petitioner is not named in the FIR and during the course of
investigation, co-accused Pappu Dom @ Pappu Ram was
arrested and on the basis of the disclosure made by them, the
shop of the petitioner’s father was searched leading to the
recovery of certain articles. It is contended that the recovered
articles are not the stolen articles; rather, they belong to the shop
of the petitioner’s father. It is further submitted that the seized
articles were never subjected to a Test Identification Parade
(TIP). Since both the shop from which the theft was allegedly
committed and the shop from which the articles were recovered
deal in utensils, the petitioner and his father have been
implicated merely on suspicion. It is further contended that
although the FIR was instituted on 11.06.2025, it was
transmitted to the jurisdictional court only on 16.06.2025, and
therefore, the possibility of deliberation and embellishment in
the prosecution case cannot be ruled out. The petitioner has
nothing to do with the present case and possesses a clean
antecedent.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the
recovery of the stolen articles from the shop of the petitioner
clearly indicates his involvement in the commission of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39092 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
3/3
alleged offence.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by
the learned Advocates for the respective parties and taking note
of the fact that the recovered articles have not been put on Test
Identification Parade, coupled with the delay in sending the FIR
to the concerned jurisdictional court, besides the fair antecedent
of the petitioner, let the above named petitioner, be released on
bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned
Court below within a period of four weeks from today, on
furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two
sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned
A.C.J.M, VI, Patna City in connection with Alamganj P.S. Case
No.617 of 2025, subject to the condition as laid down under
Section 482(2) of the BNSS, with further condition that one of
the bailors shall be the own/close family members of the
petitioner.
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.