Patna High Court
Rakesh Kumar Yadav @ Rakesh YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- R P MISHRA
Holding
Bail was denied to the petitioner.
Summary
Rakesh Kumar Yadav was charged under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act for a motorcycle snatching incident involving assault and firing. He applied for bail, claiming innocence, lack of incriminating material, and that his alleged confession before police was inadmissible. The State opposed bail, citing a self‑confession, recovery of the stolen motorcycle from the petitioner, and the denial of bail to co‑accused in a related case. The Court examined the seriousness of the offences, the confession, and the prosecution’s evidence, and concluded that the petitioner did not merit bail at this stage. Consequently, the bail petition was rejected, the trial was ordered to be expedited, and the petitioner was permitted to renew a bail application if the trial is not concluded within four months.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to an accused of offences under IPC Sec 394 and Arms Act Sec 27 when a self‑confession and recovery of the stolen property are alleged.
- Whether a confession made before police, lacking corroboration, has evidentiary value for bail considerations.
- Whether the seriousness of the offences and the existence of prior criminal antecedents preclude bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 394
Subjects
- bail
- IPC Section 394
- Arms Act Section 27
- self‑confession
- serious offence
- trial expedite
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62090 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2024 Thana- FALKA District- Katihar
======================================================
Rakesh Kumar Yadav @ Rakesh Yadav S/o- Tejnarayan Yadav R/o Village-
Bhangha, P.S. Pothia District- Katihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Mandal, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Md. Nazir Ansari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH
MISHRA
ORAL ORDER
4 02-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Falka
(Pothia) P.S. Case No. 31 of 2024, instituted for the offences
punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. The prosecution case, in short, is that four unknown
persons have snatched the motorcycle after beating and firing
upon the informant. In the said firing, the informant was injured.
It is further alleged that brother of the informant was also
assaulted by the said persons.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62090 of 2025(4) dt.02-02-2026
2/3
present case. Charge-sheet has been submitted in this case and
charge has already been framed against the petitioner on
17.05.2025. No incriminating material has been recovered from
the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for
the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner is not named in
the FIR. Name of the petitioner has transpired in this case on the
basis of self-confession made before the Police in Pothia P.S.
Case No. 73 of 2024 and the same has got no evidentiary value.
Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the
petitioner has been arrested only on the basis of suspicion. The
petitioner is in custody since 21.01.2025 and has got five
criminal antecedents in which he is on bail.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submitted that
the petitioner has confessed his guilt before the police. It is next
submitted that based on the confessional statement of the
petitioner in Falka (Pothia) P.S. Case No. 73 of 2024, the
involvement of the petitioner in this case came to the knowledge
and also stolen motorcycle has been recovered from the
petitioner’s possession. It is further submitted that regular bail
of other co-accused has been rejected by a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court vide order dated 10.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62090 of 2025(4) dt.02-02-2026
3/3
42465 of 2025. 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 four 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…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.