Patna High Court
Sujeet KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Sujeet Kumar, filed an anticipatory bail application fearing arrest in a case registered under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code for alleged dacoity. The prosecution alleged that unknown persons assaulted a security guard and looted Rs. 7,48,600 from a workshop, and the petitioner’s name surfaced only through a confessional statement of a co-accused, Ranjan Kumar, with no other material linking him to the crime. The petitioner argued his innocence, stating he was not named in the FIR and that there was no evidence of his involvement. The State opposed the bail, highlighting the petitioner’s appearance in the investigation, the allegation of his participation in the loot, and his prior similar criminal antecedent. Considering the lack of substantive evidence, the reliance on a co-accused’s confession, and the petitioner’s criminal history, the court rejected the anticipatory bail plea.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted when the petitioner is implicated solely through a co-accused’s confessional statement and not named in the FIR.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent and the material gathered during investigation justify denial of anticipatory bail.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 394
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 394 IPC
- dacoity
- confessional statement
- co-accused
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6202 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-526 Year-2020 Thana- AGAMKUAN District- Patna
======================================================
Sujeet Kumar S/O Vinod Yadav R/O Village- Panchvati Nagar, Bazar Samiti,
P.S- Bahadurpur, Distt.- Patna
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Jay Ram Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Narsingh Tanti, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 19-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3. As per prosecution case, on the alleged date and
time of occurrence, some unknown persons assaulted the
security guard and looted cash of Rs. 7,48,600/- from the
workshop.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
committed no offence. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R..
Name of petitioner transpired in this case during investigation
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6202 of 2026(2) dt.19-02-2026
2/2
only on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused
Ranjan Kumar. Save and except the same, there is no material
on record to show the complicity of this petitioner in the alleged
occurrence.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner and submitted that name of petitioner transpired in
this case during investigation and there is accusation that he,
along with other accused persons, looted cash from the
workshop. Petitioner has got one criminal antecedent of similar
nature.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, materials that haves surfaced during investigation and
criminal antecedents of the petitioner, the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…