Patna High Court
Karan SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The Court granted pre‑arrest bail to the petitioner, finding the evidence insufficient to justify continued detention.
Summary
Karan Singh applied for pre‑arrest bail in a case (Buxar Industrial PS No. 183 of 2025) alleging his involvement in the theft of 98 gas‑pipe pieces worth Rs 38 lakhs. The FIR was lodged on 26 July 2025, while the alleged theft occurred on 15 July 2025. The only incriminating material against the petitioner is a confessional statement of co‑accused Virodhi Yadav, which merely mentions that the petitioner instructed the loading of the pipes; no other evidence links him to the crime, and the stolen pipes have since been recovered. The State opposed bail, arguing the petitioner directed the theft. The Court noted the lack of substantive proof beyond the confessional statement and, considering the petitioner’s willingness to cooperate, granted pre‑arrest bail subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Issues considered
- What is the adequacy of the material evidence, particularly a confessional statement, to justify denial of pre‑arrest bail under Section 482(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023?
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 112(2), 303(2), 482(2)
Subjects
- pre‑arrest bail
- Section 482
- confessional statement
- insufficient evidence
- theft of property
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70818 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-183 Year-2025 Thana- BUXAR INDUSTRIAL District- Buxar
======================================================
Karan Singh Son of Dinanath Singh Resident of Village - Ramobariya, P.O.-
Majharia, P.S.- Buxar Industrial, District - Buxar, Bihar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Piyush Saurav, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rana Randhir Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Buxar Industrial P.S. Case No. 183 of 2025, registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 112(2) and 303(2) of the
BNS, 2023.
3. The informant, Site In-charge in M/s Shanti Infra
Construction Pvt. Ltd., Noida involve in installation of gas
pipeline from Bihiya to Buxar filed a written report alleging
therein that in course of verification, he found that the pipes
kept at Dalsagar Toll Plaza, out of which 98 pieces of pipes have
been stealthily transported on two truck by driver/owners along
with their associates. The cost of the stolen pipes is said to be
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70818 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/4
Rs. 38 lakhs.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that
the alleged occurrence took place on 15th of July, 2025, but the
present FIR came to be instituted on 26 th of July, 2025 without
there being any plausible explanation. The petitioner is said to
be working in the State of Odisha engaged in project of
installation of gas pipeline and only on account of rivalry, the
name of the petitioner has been dragged in this case. Moreover,
the petitioner is not named in the FIR, later on one Virodhi
Yadav was apprehended by the police and for the first time, the
name of the petitioner has been surfaced in his confessional
statement. However, even in the confessional statement, it is
only said that on the instruction of the petitioner, he called the
truck driver and hydra operator for loading the pipes on the
truck by disclosing his name as Karan Singh. The mobile
number which figures in the FIR does not belong to the
petitioner rather the same is registered in the name of wife of
Virodhi Yadav. The petitioner though bears one criminal
antecedent, however, the same is of 2021 and registered under
Section 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC and he is on bail in the said
case. It is lastly contended that be that as it may, now the stolen
pipes have been recovered from West Bengal and none has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70818 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
3/4
disclosed that it is the petitioner, who has brought the pipe.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State
opposed the pre-arrest bail application and submits that the
entire allegation of theft of pipe revolves around the petitioner.
In fact, it is he on whose instruction the entire pipe has been
stolen and later on, on the confession made by co-accused
Virodhi Yadav, the same have been recovered from West
Bengal.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by
learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of
the materials available on record, especially the fact that save
and except the confessional statement, there is no other material
suggesting his complicity in the crime, besides the fact that now
the stolen pipes have been recovered and the petitioner
undertakes that he will fully co-operate in the proceeding of the
Court, let the petitioner above named be released on bail, in the
event of his arrest or surrender before the court below within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a
copy of this order, upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs.25,000/-
(twenty-five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each
to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Buxar in connection with Buxar Industrial P.S. Case No. 183 of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.70818 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
4/4
2025, subject to the conditions laid down in Section 482(2) of
the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 with the further
condition that one of the bailors shall be the own/close family
members of the petitioner.
(Harish Kumar, J)
shivank/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.