Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Patna High Court

Nitish KumarversusThe State of Bihar

Decided
Disposal
BAIL REJECTED

Holding

The Court held that bail could not be granted at this stage and rejected the petitioners' application.

Summary

The petitioners, Nitish Kumar and Prakash Seth, applied for regular bail under section 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in connection with a theft case (Kochas PS Case No. 179 of 2025). The prosecution alleged that the petitioners, along with two others, looted an informant and were later apprehended three days after the incident. The petitioners contended that they were falsely implicated, highlighted the three‑day delay in filing the FIR, and noted the absence of any incriminating material recovered from them, asserting they have no prior criminal record. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the identification of the petitioners by the informant. After hearing both sides, the Court declined to grant bail, citing the allegations in the FIR, and ordered that the petitioners may renew their bail application after six months or upon framing of charge, whichever is later.

Issues considered

  • Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioners under section 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in view of the allegations and the delay in FIR filing.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • regular bail
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
  • section 309(4)
  • theft
  • delay in FIR
  • false implication

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76131 of 2025
                       Arising Out of PS. Case No.-179 Year-2025 Thana- KOCHAS District- Rohtas
                 ======================================================
           1.    Nitish Kumar son of Late Gulab Mahto @ Late Gulab Ram @ Late Gulab
                 Rain Resident of Village- Dighita, Ps- Parsathua, Dist- Rohtas
           2.    Prakash Seth Son of Late Bimla Kumar Seth @ Late Bimala Kumar Seth
                 Resident of Village- Rupibandh, Ps- Parsathua, Dist- Rohtas

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

                                                        ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Vikalp, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Navin Kumar Pandey, APP
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
                                       ORAL ORDER

3   21-01-2026                  Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

                   APP for the State.

                                2. The petitioners have preferred this application for

                   grant of regular bail in connection with Kochas P.S. Case no.

                   179 of 2025 registered under section 309(4) of the Bharatiya

                   Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

                                3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states

                   that three accused persons on the point of country made pistol

                   looted the informant of various articles as described in the FIR.

                   It is further stated that three days later on 18.7.2025 when they

                   were planning to commit another theft, information was given

                   by the informant to the police and the three accused including
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76131 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
                                                       2/2




                     the two petitioners herein were caught.

                                  4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

                     petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. There is no

                     reasonable explanation for the delay of three days in lodging of the

                     FIR. No incriminating article has been recovered from the

                     petitioners’ possession who are in custody since 19.7.2025. The

                     petitioners have no criminal antecedent and chargesheet has been

                     submitted in the case.

                                  5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP

                     for the State.

                                  6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

                     taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioners

                     in the FIR wherein they were identified by the informant as

                     having given effect to the occurrence against the informant three

                     days ago, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail

                     and the application is rejected.

                                  7. Liberty is granted to the petitioners to renew their

                     prayer for bail after six months or on framing of charge,

                     whichever is later.



                                                 (Partha Sarthy, J)
sauravkrsinha/-

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.