Patna High Court
Sunil Kumar @ Nepali @ Sunil SinghversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to cancellation if the trial is delayed.
Summary
The petitioner, Sunil Kumar, was arrested on 8 March 2025 in connection with a robbery (Section 392 IPC) based on an FIR against unknown persons and a confessional statement of an apprehended accused, which the court held lacked evidentiary value. The petitioner, who has three prior cases, sought bail, arguing that the charges were framed without substantive proof and that he would cooperate with the trial. The State opposed the bail. The High Court considered the lack of reliable evidence, the pending trial, and the petitioner’s antecedents, and ordered his release on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, one of whom must be his mother, Maya Devi, subject to cancellation if he attempts to delay the trial. The order emphasizes that the trial court may revoke bail if misuse is observed. The bail was granted with conditions to ensure the petitioner’s appearance.
Issues considered
- Whether a confessional statement of an accused in police custody can form the basis for framing charges against the petitioner.
- Whether bail should be granted in a robbery case under Section 392 IPC despite the petitioner’s antecedent cases and the trial not yet commenced.
- Whether the conditions imposed on bail are sufficient to prevent trial delay.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 392
Subjects
- bail
- robbery
- Section 392 IPC
- confessional statement
- antecedent cases
- trial delay
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74654 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-104 Year-2019 Thana- KOPA District- Saran
======================================================
Sunil Kumar @ Nepali @ Sunil Singh S/o Late Dineshwar Singh Resident of
Village- Aami alias Ami, P/S- Dighwara, District- Saran at Chapra
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Alok, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Parmanand Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 25-02-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Kopa
Case No.104/2019, registered for the offences punishable under
Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of three cases and is in custody since
08.03.2025 and the informant alleges that she was intercepted by
2-3 unknown accused, who looted her articles as recorded in the
FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
FIR was against unknown and the name of the petitioner
transpired in the confessional statement of apprehended accused in
police custody which does not have any evidentiary value. It is
also submitted that since the petitioner has antecedent as such the
police got him implicated through the apprehended accused. It is
also submitted that charges have been framed against the petitioner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74654 of 2025(3) dt.25-02-2026
2/2
by an order dated 12.09.2025 but then trial has not commenced. It
is also submitted that petitioner if privilege of bail is granted to the
petitioner, the petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in
the trial to prove his innocence.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer for bail of the
petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, is directed
to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to
the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is
pending/successor court in connection with Kopa P.S. Case
No.104/2019.
7. Further, one of the bailors of the petitioner shall be
his mother, namely, Maya Devi.
8. However, it is made clear that if the learned trial court
comes to a conclusion that petitioner after his release is trying to
delay the trial in any manner, the learned trial court shall be at
liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
amit/-
U T
Checking your session…