Patna High Court
Ajit Kumar @ Ajit Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
The Court denied bail to the petitioner, finding the evidence and seriousness of the offences sufficient to justify continued custody.
Summary
The petitioner, Ajit Kumar, was charged under Section 309(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act for a robbery in which miscreants allegedly entered an informant's house, assaulted occupants and stole cash and jewellery at gunpoint. The petitioner claimed innocence, stating he was not named in the FIR, that his alleged confession lacked evidentiary value, and that no incriminating material was found on him, while asserting the recovered Rs. 50,000 belonged to him. The State opposed bail, relying on CCTV footage showing the registration number of a motorcycle used in the crime belonging to the petitioner, indicating his involvement. The Court, after considering the seriousness of the offence, the evidence linking the petitioner to the crime, and the lack of a strong bail justification, refused to grant bail and directed the trial court to expedite the trial, allowing a future bail application if the trial exceeds three months. The order underscores the court's discretion to deny bail where the nature of the accusation and evidentiary material warrant continued custody.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting bail to the petitioner given the evidence linking him to the robbery and arms offence?
- Does the self‑confession made before police have evidentiary value for bail considerations?
- Does ownership of a motorcycle identified in CCTV footage constitute sufficient ground to deny bail?
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 309(6)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- robbery
- arms offence
- Section 309
- Section 27
- CCTV evidence
- self‑confession
- high court
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53017 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-183 Year-2025 Thana- HAJIPUR SADAR District- Vaishali
======================================================
Ajit Kumar @ Ajit Kumar Yadav S/o Kishundeo Rai R/o Village_ Tajpur
Bujurg, P.S. Mahua, District - Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Choubey Jawahar, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
4 16-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
APP for the State, learned counsel for the informant and perused
the case diary.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Hajipur
Sadar P.S. Case No. 183 of 2025, instituted for the offences
punishable under Section 309(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that four unknown
miscreants arrived at the informant’s house on two motorcycles
on the pretext of seeking a room for rent, forcibly entered her
house, assaulted her nephew and maid, and looted ornaments
and Rs. 4 lakh cash after obtaining the key of the Godrej
almirah at gunpoint.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53017 of 2025(4) dt.16-01-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case. No
incriminating material has been recovered from the conscious
possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner
also submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR but in
course of investigation he has been made accused on the basis
of self-confession made before the police and the same has got
no evidentiary value. It is next submitted that the recovered
amount of Rs. 50,000/- belongs to the petitioner. The petitioner
is in custody since 07.03.2025 and has got no criminal
antecedent. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that other co-accused has been granted regular bail by this Court
vide order dated 14.10.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 50860 of
2025.
5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel for
the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of
bail to the petitioner and submits that there is credible evidence
against the petitioner about his involvement in commission of
the offence and causing injury. It is next submitted that on
perusal of paragraph nos. 5 and 8 of the case diary, it transpires
that the CCTV footage indicated the registration number of both
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53017 of 2025(4) dt.16-01-2026
3/3
the motorcycles used in the commission of the offence and one
of the motorcycles belong to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner
does not deserve the privilege of bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
of the case, nature of accusation and the gravity of the offence,
this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
7. The prayer is rejected. The trial Court is directed to
expedite the Trial. However, if the trial is not concluded within a
period of three months from the date of receipt/production, the
petitioner will have liberty to renew his prayer for bail in the
Court below.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-
U T
Checking your session…