Patna High Court
Raman @ Ravindra Kumar Yadav @ Raman KumarversusThe State of Bihar and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The court held that anticipatory bail could not be granted as the petitioner’s antecedent and the material collected during investigation warranted denial.
Summary
The petitioner sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under Section 303(2) of the B.N.S. for theft of an e‑rickshaw. The FIR was initially filed against unknown persons and the petitioner’s name only emerged during investigation; no stolen article was found in his possession. The petitioner asserted innocence and that he was not named in the FIR. The State opposed bail, highlighting the petitioner’s criminal antecedent and the investigative material linking him to the offence. After considering the facts, the investigation’s findings, and the antecedent, the court rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner in a theft case under Section 303(2) of the B.N.S. given the investigative material and his criminal antecedent.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 303(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal antecedent
- theft
- Section 303(2)
- B.N.S.
- High Court
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7868 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-380 Year-2025 Thana- JANKINAGAR District- Purnia
======================================================
Raman @ Ravindra Kumar Yadav @ Raman Kumar Son of Yogendra Yadav
R/o Village -Ram Nagar, Ward no. 12, P.S. - Jankinagar, District - Purnea.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Prawesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Raj Kishor Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 20-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Section 303(2) of the
B.N.S..
3. F.I.R. was registered against unknown persons for
theft of e-rickshaw of informant.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has
committed no offence. Petitioner is not named in the F.I.R..
Name of petitioner transpired in this case during investigation.
No stolen article was recovered from possession of this
petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7868 of 2026(2) dt.20-02-2026
2/2
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has
vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to
the petitioner and submitted that name of petitioner transpired
during investigation and he has got one criminal antecedent.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, materials that have surfaced during investigation and
criminal antecedent of the petitioner, the prayer for grant of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…