Patna High Court

Ganesh Kumar @ Ganesh Yadav @ Ganesh Prasad YadavversusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 6 January 2026
Disposal: BAIL REJECTED
Bench: SATYAVRAT VERMA

Holding

Anticipatory bail was denied to the petitioner.

Summary

The petitioner, Ganesh Kumar, sought anticipatory bail in a case registered in 2017 for offences under Sections 395 and 412 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that the FIR named him only on the basis of a confessional statement of a co‑accused. He claimed a clean antecedent and that the alleged robbery was carried out by unknown persons. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the robbery, the reliance on the co‑accused’s confession, and the risk of tampering with evidence. The Court examined the submissions, noted that the confessional statement lacks evidentiary value for bail purposes, and considered the ongoing investigation. Concluding that the circumstances did not warrant the privilege of anticipatory bail, the Court rejected the petition.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the petitioner is implicated solely on the basis of a co‑accused’s confessional statement.
Whether the risk of evidence tampering and the seriousness of the offences under Sections 395 and 412 IPC preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 395, 412

Subjects

anticipatory bail
robbery
dacoity
confessional statement
Indian Penal Code
Criminal Procedure

Judgment

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                              CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78851 of 2025
                      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-370 Year-2017 Thana- HARNAUT District- Nalanda
                 ======================================================
                 Ganesh Kumar @ Ganesh Yadav @ Ganesh Prasad Yadav S/o Laxmi Yadav
                 R/o Village- Chak Johara, P.S- Dhanarua, Dist- Patna
                                                                             ... ... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
                 The State of Bihar
                                                                      ... ... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Jay Ram Prasad, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
                                       ORAL ORDER

2   06-01-2026                  1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

                   A.P.P. for the State.

                                2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered

                   for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 412 of the Indian

                   Penal Code.

                                3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

                   petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of

                   looting the informant while he was carrying pulse loaded on a truck

                   by unknown criminals 8-10 in number and they forcefully abducted

                   the informant and blind folded him and threw him in the field after

                   tying his hand.

                                4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 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 in the eye of law. It is

                   further submitted that petitioner was not even aware that he has been
           Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78851 of 2025(2) dt.06-01-2026
                                                       2/2




                     implicated in the instant case based on the confessional statement.

                                  5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the

                     prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the case

                     is of road robbery and the FIR was instituted in the year 2017 and the

                     name of the petitioner transpired based on the confessional statement

                     of apprehended accused. It is further submitted that the order

                     impugned records that from other co-accused looted articles were

                     also recovered. It is next submitted that investigation in the case

                     against the petitioner is continuing and if privilege of anticipatory

                     bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitiner may abscond or try to

                     tamper with the evidence.

                                  6. Considering the submissions made by the learned

                     A.P.P. for the State and the fact that the case is of the year 2017, the

                     Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the

                     petitioner in connection with Harnaut P.S. Case No. 370 of 2017

                     pending in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda at

                     Bihar Sharif/Successor Court.

                                  7. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected.


                                                                          (Satyavrat Verma, J)

Kundan/-

U     T

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…