Patna High Court
Anish KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- RITESH KUMAR
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail cannot be granted as the petitioner’s involvement is established through the co‑accused’s confessional statement and his status as a habitual offender with several pending cases.
Summary
The petitioner, Anish Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a robbery and arms possession case (PS Bhagwanpur Case No. 134 of 2025) alleging offences under Section 309(6) of the B.N.S.S. and Sections 25(1‑B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act. The prosecution’s case rests on a confessional statement of a co‑accused, Vivek Kumar, who implicated the petitioner as an associate. The petitioner contended he was not present at the scene and that the statement alone was insufficient, also raising procedural lapses under Section 105 of the B.N.S.S. The State opposed bail, highlighting the petitioner’s six pending cases, some of a similar nature, suggesting a habitual offender. The court, after considering the material, found the confessional statement credible and the petitioner’s criminal history relevant, and therefore refused anticipatory bail. The petition for anticipatory bail was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the relevant provisions of the B.N.S.S. and the Arms Act.
- Whether a co‑accused’s confessional statement is sufficient to establish the petitioner’s involvement for the purpose of bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s multiple pending cases and alleged habitual nature preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- confessional statement
- arms possession
- habitual offender
- Section 105 B.N.S.S.
- Section 309(6) B.N.S.S.
- Sections 25(1‑B)a, 26, 35 Arms Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39495 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-134 Year-2025 Thana- BHAGWANPUR District- Vaishali
======================================================
Anish Kumar S/O Pacha Sahani @ Pachu Sahani R/O Village-Chhajam,
Chhajan (Thatiya Belaur,), Kudhani, P.S.- Turkey, District- Muzaffarpur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravish Mishra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shastri, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 17-06-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in
connection with Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 134 of 2025, for
allegedly having committed offence under Section 309(6) of the
BNS and Sections 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.
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 the date of occurrence, while he
was returning home on his motor-cycle, after attending a
marriage ceremony, two persons started following him on their
Apache motorcycle. He was intercepted and one of the persons
pointed pistol on his temple and took way the key of the
motorcycle. The co-accused person relieved him of Rs. 3,000/-,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39495 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
2/3
which he was carrying. The officials of Bhagwanpur Police
Station were on patrolling duty and on hulla, they started
chasing the motorcycle, on which both the persons fled away.
The police succeeded in apprehending the pillion rider of the
motorcycle, who disclosed his name as Vivek Kumar, from
whose possession one country made pistol was recovered and
on his confessional statement, the name of the petitioner came
as an associate of the said Vivek Kumar in the present case.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is innocent and was not present at the place of
occurrence. The name of the petitioner transpired in the present
case on the basis of the confessional statement made by the co-
accused Vivek Kumar, who was apprehended at the place of the
occurrence. Apart from the confessional statement, nothing has
come against the petitioner. He further submits that even the
provisions contained under Section 105 of the B.N.S.S. have not
been followed, while preparing the seizure list. He further
submits that the petitioner has got six other cases pending
against him and he is on bail in the same.
5. The learned APP for the State vehemently
opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the
petitioner is an accused in six other cases, out of which some are
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39495 of 2026(2) dt.17-06-2026
3/3
of similar nature, which suggest that the petitioner is a habitual
offender and if he will be granted the privilege of anticipatory
bail, there is every chance that he will again indulge in similar
type of activity again.
6. Having heard the rival submissions and after going
through the record, it appears that on the basis of the
confessional statement of the co-accused Vivek Kumar, the
name of the petitioner has transpired in the present case. The
petitioner is an accused in six cases, out of which some are of
similar nature. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, I am not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail
to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the prayer to grant the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected.
(Ritesh Kumar, J)
AjayMishra/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.