Patna High Court
Sumit Kumar @ BiganversusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The Court denied bail, holding that the seriousness of the offences, recovery of stolen property, and the petitioner’s criminal antecedents preclude the grant of bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Sumit Kumar, applied for regular bail in a case registered under Sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code for a dacoity in which loot worth Rs. 10,00,000 and other valuables were taken. The prosecution alleged that loot was recovered from the petitioner's house and his name appeared in a co‑accused's confessional statement, while also highlighting three prior criminal antecedents. The petitioner argued that no material had been recovered from him and that he had been in custody since January 2024. The Court examined the seriousness of the offences, the recovery of stolen articles, the incriminating statements, and the petitioner’s criminal history. Concluding that the circumstances did not warrant bail, the Court upheld its earlier order and rejected the bail application.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case involving dacoity and robbery under Sections 395 and 412 IPC.
- Whether the presence of the petitioner’s name in a co‑accused’s confessional statement and recovery of stolen articles from his premises preclude bail.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents affect the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 395, 412
Subjects
- bail
- dacoity
- robbery
- IPC
- criminal antecedents
- confessional statement
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62439 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-455 Year-2023 Thana- BAHERA District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Sumit Kumar @ Bigan S/O Arun Bhagat R/O Vill.- Simri, P.s.-
Vidyapatinagar, District- Samstipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sabal Kumar Jha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Bharat Bhushan
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 26-02-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned APP for the State.
2. This is the 2nd attempt of the petitioner. The
petitioner seeks bail in connection with Bahera P.S. Case No.
455 of 2023, registered for the offence under Sections 395 and
412 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner was
rejected on 28.08.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 58737 of 2024 which
reads as follows:-
“Heard the learned counsel for
the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail
in connection with Bahera P.S. Case No. 455
of 2023 registered for the offence under
Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, in
the shop of the informant, dacoity was
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.62439 of 2025(4) dt.26-02-2026
2/2
committed. Criminals looted Rs. 25,000/-
and thereafter they also took away
ornaments, domestic utensils, laptop worth
Rs. 10,00,000/- and mobiles.
4. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that there is no recovery
from the possession of the petitioner and is
in custody since 01.01.2024. He further
submits that the name of the petitioner has
surfaced in the confessional statement of co-
accused Ankesh Kumar @ Mikal.
5. Learned A.P.P. has vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail and has
submitted that the petitioner has three
criminal antecedents.
6. I have considered the
submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner. The name of the petitioner has
surfaced in the self inculpatory statement of
co-accused and some looted articles have
been recovered from the house of the
petitioner.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts
and circumstances, I am not inclined to
grant bail to the petitioner. This application
for regular bail is accordingly rejected.”
4. The trial of the petitioner is going on and also
considering the gravity of offence, this Court finds no ground to
review its earlier order. Accordingly, this application for regular
bail stands rejected.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Ranjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…