Patna High Court

Pratik Rai @ Pratik RajversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 20 February 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: PURNENDU SINGH

Holding

The Court refused to grant pre‑arrest bail to the petitioner, directing him to surrender and seek regular bail.

Summary

The petitioner, Pratik Rai, was implicated in a robbery case (PS Case No. 408 of 2020) for allegedly looting a truck loaded with bananas, an offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. He applied for pre‑arrest bail, contending that he is innocent, that the bananas were not seized, and that his involvement is solely because the vehicle is registered in his name. The State opposed the bail, highlighting the seriousness of the alleged robbery and the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents in similar cases. The Court examined the FIR allegations, the recovery of the truck from a police station rather than the crime scene, and the petitioner’s history, and found no sufficient ground to grant pre‑arrest bail. Consequently, the Court denied the pre‑arrest bail and directed the petitioner to surrender before the District Court for a regular bail application. The District Court was instructed to consider the bail application on the same day based on the existing record.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre‑arrest bail in a case of alleged robbery under Section 392 IPC considering the FIR allegations and his prior criminal antecedents.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 392

Subjects

pre‑arrest bail
Section 392 IPC
robbery
bail application
criminal antecedent
vehicle registration
Patna High Court

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69357 of 2025
                     Arising Out of PS. Case No.-408 Year-2020 Thana- GARDANIBAG District- Patna
                 ======================================================
                 Pratik Rai @ Pratik Raj S/O Laxuman Rai @ Lakshman Rai @ Lakham Rai
                 R/O Village- Nurpur, Sharifaganj, P.S- Malsalami, Dist.- Patna.
                                                                               ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr.Jay Ram Prasad, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Ajit Kumar, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
                                       ORAL ORDER

5   20-02-2026                       Heard Mr. Jay Ram Prasad, learned counsel

                   appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Kumar,

                   learned APP for the State.

                                2. Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with

                   Gardanibagh P.S.Case No.408 of 2020, registered for the

                   offences punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal

                   Code.

                                3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the petitioner

                   along with other co-accused persons looted a Truck loaded with

                   Bananas.

                                4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

                   petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent. He further

                   submitted that the truck was loaded with a huge quantity of

                   bananas, however, in absence of any seizure list, it cannot be

                   presumed that the petitioner has clandestinely removed the

                   entire alleged looted Bananas. Learned counsel further
            Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69357 of 2025(5) dt.20-02-2026
                                                        2/2




                      submitted that the truck in question has been recovered from

                      Dhanaua Police Station and not from the place of occurrence or

                      from the location where the FIR has been lodged. The petitioner

                      has been roped in the present case solely on the ground that the

                      vehicle (Safari) is registered in his name.

                                   5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the

                      prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

                                   6. Having considered the rival submissions made on

                      behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation

                      made in the FIR and the previous criminal antecedent of the

                      petitioner, who is involved in other cases of similar nature, I am

                      not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on pre-arrest bail.

                                   7. However, if the petitioner so advised, he may

                      surrender before the learned district court and seek regular bail.

                                   8. The learned District Court is directed to consider

                      the bail application of the petitioner on the same day and pass

                      necessary order on the basis of materials available on the record

                      in accordance with law.

                                   9. With the above observation/direction, the present

                      application stands disposed of.


                                                (Purnendu Singh, J)
chn/-
U       T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…