Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Ravindra Kumar @ Ravindra YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
ALLOWED

Holding

The Court granted bail to the petitioner, finding that the evidence against him was insufficient to justify continued detention.

Summary

The petitioner, Ravindra Kumar, sought bail in a case registered under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code for alleged dacoity involving the theft of a truck and its contents. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was part of a group that overpowered the informant's truck and seized the vehicle and a mobile phone. The petitioner claimed innocence, stating that the FIR was lodged against unknown miscreants and that the only evidence against him was a confessional statement by a co-accused, with no material recovered from him. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence. After hearing both sides, the Court found the lack of substantive evidence sufficient to grant bail, directing the petitioner to furnish a bail bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a case under Section 395 IPC given the nature of the alleged offence and the evidentiary material.
  • Whether the confessional statement of a co-accused, without any recovered property, is sufficient ground to deny bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • Section 395 IPC
  • dacoity
  • confessional statement
  • judicial custody
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.5005 of 2026
                    Arising Out of PS. Case No.-273 Year-2018 Thana- DULHIN BAZAR District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Ravindra Kumar @ Ravindra Yadav, S/o Ganesh Yadav, Resident of Village-
                 Kidui, P.S.- Paras Bigha, District- Jehanabad

                                                                                 ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                      Versus
                 The State of Bihar

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr. Sheonandan Pandit, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   04-02-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection

                   with Dulhin Bazar P.S. Case No. 273 of 2018 registered for the

                   offence punishable under Section 395 of I.P.C.

                                3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that

                   informant is a driver of a truck and after loading Soyabeans to

                   the tune of 27.380 tone on a trcuk proceeded to its destination

                   from Begusarai. When the truck reached at Pali road at that time

                   one unknown truck bearing 12 wheels overtook                                and

                   overpowered the truck of the informant. Seven persons came

                   down and boarded in the truck of the informant, snatched his

                   mobile and truck.

                                4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.5005 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
                                                         2/2




                       petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has

                       committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this

                       case. The F.I.R. was lodged against unknown miscreants.

                       During course of investigation, one co-accused Sudhir Kumar

                       has given his confessional statement and the name of this

                       petitioner has surfaced in his confessional statement. Nothing

                       has been recovered from his possession. Save and except the

                       confessional statement, there is nothing against him. He is

                       languishing in judicial custody since 23.09.2025.

                                    5. Learned APP appearing for the State has

                       vehemently opposed the application for bail.

                                    6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                       considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is

                       inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named

                       petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail

                       bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties

                       of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.D.J.-

                       VI, Danapur in connection with Dulhin Bazar P.S. Case No. 273

                       of 2018.


                                                 (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

lata/-
U        T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.