Patna High Court
Uma PrasadversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The Court denied bail to the petitioner, holding that the evidence and seriousness of the offence warranted the dismissal of the bail application.
Summary
Uma Prasad was arrested in connection with a robbery in which Rs. 1,90,000 was looted from an informant using a motorcycle. He applied for regular bail under Section 309 of the BNS, claiming innocence, a clean record, and that a co‑accused had been granted bail. The State opposed, citing video evidence of the motorcycle, a self‑inculpatory statement by another accused naming the petitioner as the motorcycle's owner, and the petitioner’s presence at the crime scene. The Court noted the material evidence and the seriousness of the offence, also referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in X v. State of Rajasthan (2024) regarding bail in serious cases. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 309 of the BNS in view of the evidence and the gravity of the alleged robbery.
Legislation cited
- BNS — s. 309
Subjects
- bail
- robbery
- theft
- Section 309
- criminal procedure
- evidence
- video evidence
- self‑inculpatory statement
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7190 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-114 Year-2025 Thana- CHAND District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
Uma Prasad Son of Loknath Resident of Village- Gayapur, P.S.- Sahebganj,
District- Chandauli (U.P.)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Jay Prakash Singh, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Md. Nazir Ansari, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 16-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. This is the second attempt on behalf of the
petitioner for grant of bail in connection with Chand P.S.Case
No. 114 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under
Section 309 of the BNS.
3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has
been rejected vide order dated 09.07.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.
No. 39838 of 2025, which reads as under:-
Heard the learned counsel for
the petitioner and learned APP for the
State.
2. This application has been
filed on behalf of the petitioner for grant of
regular bail in connection with Chand P.S.
Case No. 114 of 2025 registered for the
offence under Section 309(4) of the BNS,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7190 of 2026(2) dt.16-02-2026
2/3
2023.
3. As per the prosecution case,
unknown criminals dashed their
motorcycle and looted Rs. 1,90,000/- from
the informant.
4. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has submitted that the petitioner
is innocent and has falsely been implicated
in this case. He further submits that the
petitioner is in custody since 3.5.2025 and
he has clean antecedent. 5. Learned
counsel for the petitioner has further
submitted that one co-accused Suraj
Chauhan has already been granted bail by
this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the State
has opposed the application of the
petitioner for grant of bail and has
submitted that during investigation, one
Arvind Ram was caught and Rs. 15,000/-
of the looted amount was recovered from
him. He further submits that the informant
side had made a video of the motorcycle
which was found fleeing and in the video
the registration number of the motorcycle
was also captured. He further submits that
in the self-inculpatory statement, Arvind
Ram has named the petitioner as the
owner of the motorcycle which was used in
the loot. In the tower location also, the
presence of the petitioner has also come
on the place of occurrence.
7. Considering the participation
of the petitioner in the alleged crime and
also considering the materials available
on record, this Court is not inclined to
grant bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, this application
is dismissed.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7190 of 2026(2) dt.16-02-2026
3/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
charge has been framed and out of 6 witnesses, 2 witnesses have
been examined.
5. Considering the gravity of offence and the fact that
the trial has started, the petitioner does not deserve bail in view
of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of X Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. Reported in 2024 SCC
online SC 3539.
6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
N.K/-
U T
Checking your session…