Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh @ Rajnish KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

Bail was not granted to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Rakesh Kumar, applied for bail in a case registered under Sections 395, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly snatching Rs. 5,37,641 at gunpoint. The prosecution claimed that Rs. 86,000 of the looted money was recovered from the petitioner, while the petitioner asserted that the recovered amount was his own and no theft in possession (TIP) had been established. The High Court noted that the charge had been framed but no witnesses had been examined, and emphasized the seriousness of the alleged robbery. Considering the gravity of the offence, the fact that the trial had commenced, and the absence of a TIP finding, the Court declined to grant bail. The application was dismissed, and the trial court was directed to expedite the trial and ensure witness appearance.

Issues considered

  • Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner in a case involving robbery, dacoity and conspiracy.
  • Whether the recovery of Rs. 86,000 from the petitioner constitutes a theft in possession (TIP) sufficient to deny bail.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • bail
  • robbery
  • dacoity
  • conspiracy
  • theft in possession
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                 CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74439 of 2025
                   Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2024 Thana- Ramgarh Chowk District- Lakhisarai
                 ======================================================
                 Rakesh Kumar @ Rakesh @ Rajnish Kumar Son of Naresh Chaudhary @
                 Naresh Choudhary R/o Village - Bigha Jamalpur, P.S. - Sheikhpura, Dist. -
                 Sheikhpura.


                                                                                    ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                        Versus
                 The State of Bihar


                                                                              ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr.Sheo Nandan Prasad, Advocate
                 For the State            :        Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   09-02-2026                    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 Ramgarh Chowk

                   P.S. Case No. 85 of 2024 registered for the offence under

                   Sections 395, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

                                  3. Earlier the bail application of the petitioner has

                   been rejected vide order dated 12.02.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.

                   No. 70884 of 2024, which reads as under:

                                              “Heard learned counsel for the
                                   petitioner and learned APP for the State.
                                              2. The petitioner seeks bail in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74439 of 2025(3) dt.09-02-2026
                                            2/3




                        connection with Ramgarh Chowk P.S. Case No.
                        85 of 2024 registered for the offence under
                        Sections 395, 120B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
                                   3. As per the prosecution case, Rs.
                        5,37,641/- was snatched by five unknown
                        criminals on gun point.
                                   4. It has been submitted by the learned
                        APP for the State that Rs. 86,000/- of the looted
                        money has been recovered from the petitioner
                        though, it has been submitted by the learned
                        counsel for the petitioner that no TIP has been
                        held and the money recovered from the petitioner
                        was his own and not the looted money.
                                   5. Considering the serious allegations
                        of loot against the petitioner, this Court is not
                        inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
                                   6. Accordingly, this application is
                        dismissed.
                                   7. If the TIP has not been held yet, the
                        police is directed to hold the TIP.”

                       4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

          though the charge has been framed but no witness has been

          examined.

                       5. Considering the gravity of the offence and the fact

          that the trial has started, I am not inclined to review my earlier

          order.

                       6. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

                       7. The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

                       8. The Superintendent of Police, Lakhisarai is directed

          to ensure the appearance of the witnesses in the trial so that the

          trial is not delayed.

                       9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74439 of 2025(3) dt.09-02-2026
                                                       3/3




                     Principal District Judge, Lakhisarai and the Superintendent of

                     Police, Lakhisarai forthwith through FAX or e-mail for its

                     compliance.


                                                                          (Sandeep Kumar, J)

P. Kumar

U     T


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.