Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Neeraj Kumar Thakur @ Dheeraj Thakur @ Dhiraj ThakurversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The Court denied the petitioner's anticipatory bail application.

Summary

The petitioner, Neeraj Kumar Thakur, sought anticipatory bail after learning that he may be arrested in connection with a theft case (PS case No. 698 of 2024) registered under sections 334(2) and 303(2) of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023. The FIR alleged theft of garlic, onion and cash, and CCTV footage led to the identification of suspects. One of the arrested individuals, Burhu Kamat (alias Rohit Kumar), gave a confessional statement naming Arvind Kamat and the petitioner as participants. The petitioner contended that his name appeared only in the confession and that no material had been seized from his possession. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the theft, the informant's suspicion, and the confession naming the petitioner. The Court, noting the delay in filing the anticipatory bail application and the seriousness of the allegations, rejected the bail request but directed the petitioner to surrender within four weeks for prompt disposal of the matter.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner when his name appears only in a co-accused's confession and no material has been seized from him
  • Whether the delay in filing the anticipatory bail application warrants denial of bail

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • confession
  • theft
  • delay in filing
  • Bihar Narcotic Substances Act
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                               CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.756 of 2026
                        Arising Out of PS. Case No.-698 Year-2024 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul
                 ======================================================
                 Neeraj Kumar Thakur @ Dheeraj Thakur @ Dhiraj Thakur S/O Late Mohan
                 Thakur R/O Village- Veena Road, Ward No. 24, P.S- Supaul, Distt.- Supaul.

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :        Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh, Adv.
                 For the Opposite Party/s :        Mr. Md. Aslam Ansari, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   04-02-2026                   Herad Mr. Ranjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for

                   the petitioner and the State.

                                 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection

                   with Supaul P.S. Case No. 698 of 2024 for the offence registered

                   under sections 334(2), 303(2) of BNS, 2023 lodged on

                   24.10.2024 by the informant, Kali Mandal.

                                 3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged

                   that a theft was committed in his shop which included garlic,

                   onion and cash of Rs. 5,000/- from the drawer. On the basis of

                   CCTV footage of the local area, accused were identified which

                   followed the FIR. Subsequently, as the story unfolds, Burhu

                   Kamat @ Rohit Kumar was picked up and he in the

                   confessional statement gave the name of Arvind Kamat and this

                   petitioner.
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.756 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026
                                                       2/2




                                  4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only

                     because his name has come in the confession of the

                     apprehended person, got implicated. Further, nothing has been

                     recovered/seized from his conscious possession.

                                  5. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that a

                     theft took place, the informant showed his suspicion, one person

                     picked up and he gave the name of this petitioner.

                                  6. Considering the submissions of the parties as also

                     the materials on record coupled with the fact the FIR was

                     lodged on 24.10.2024 and belatedly, this anticipatory bail

                     application has been filed, in that background, this Court is not

                     inclined to extend him privilege of anticipatory bail, which is

                     accordingly rejected.

                                  7. However, if the petitioner surrenders within four

                     weeks from today, the Court concerned shall take up the matter

                     and dispose it of preferably on the same day.



                                                    (Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-

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.