Patna High Court
Mukesh ChaudharyversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioner, finding no prima facie evidence linking him to the alleged dacoity.
Summary
Mukesh Chaudhary was arrested in connection with a dacoity alleged to have taken place at M/s Spandan Sphurti Finance Limited, where Rs. Seven Lakhs was allegedly looted at gunpoint. The petitioner was not named in the FIR and his alleged involvement rests solely on the confessional statement of a co‑accused, with no incriminating material recovered from his possession. He had been in custody since 5 August 2025 and sought bail, arguing that his criminal antecedents, derived similarly from co‑accused confessions, should not preclude bail. The State opposed the bail application. The Court observed that, apart from suspicion, there was no prima facie evidence linking the petitioner to the crime and that the investigation was complete, and therefore ordered his release on bail with a bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C. and Section 480(3) B.N.S.S.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 310(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita when the only evidence is a co‑accused's confession and no material is recovered.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents, based on similar confessional evidence, justify denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 480(3)
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 310(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 437(3)
Subjects
- bail
- dacoity
- confessional statement
- evidentiary value
- criminal antecedents
- Section 310(2) B.N.S.
- Section 437(3) CrPC
- Section 480(3) B.N.S.S.
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.7890 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-378 Year-2024 Thana- HARSIDHI District- East Champaran
======================================================
Mukesh Chaudhary S/O Late Suresh Chaudhary R/o Vill.- Jura Pakari,
Bhairoganj, P.S.- Ramnagar, District- West Champaran
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar Patna
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Umesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Jai Narain Thakur, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 12-02-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The accused/petitioner seeks bail in connection with
Harsidhi P.S. Case No. 378 of 2024 registered for the offences
under Sections 310(2) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 (in
short, the ‘B.N.S.’).
3. The accused/petitioner is not named in the First
Information Report and is in custody since 05.08.2025.
4. Allegation against the petitioner is to commit dacoity
along with other accused persons in M/s Spandan Sphurti Finance
Limited, Motihari, where during the occurrence cash of Rs. Seven
Lakhs was looted on the gun point. It is alleged that face of all the
accused persons were masked either by cloth or by the helmet.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7890 of 2026(2) dt.12-02-2026
2/3
of the petitioner that name of this petitioner transpired in the
alleged occurrence only on the basis of confessional statement of
co-accused namely, Anish Raj, in furtherance of which, no
incriminating material appears recovered from possession of this
petitioner as to connect him prima facie with the present crime in
question. It is submitted that petitioner was not put on TIP as yet.
6. Explaining criminal antecedents of the petitioner, it is
submitted that petitioner found involved in eight more criminal
cases and in maximum of these cases, his name transpired only on
the basis of confessional statement of apprehended co-accused as
of present case having no evidentiary value in law.
7. It is submitted that ordinarily prayer of bail of the
petitioner should not be rejected on the ground of criminal
antecedents alone, if merits of the case otherwise convincing in
favour of the accused/petitioner. In support of his submission,
learned counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme
Court as available through Prabhakar Tewari Vs. State of U.P.
and Another reported in (2020) 11 SCC 648.
8. Learned A.P.P. for the State has opposed the prayer
for bail of the petitioner.
9. In view of aforesaid factual submission and by taking
note of the fact as save and except suspicion prima-facie nothing
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.7890 of 2026(2) dt.12-02-2026
3/3
incriminating appears against petitioner as to connect him with
present crime in question, coupled with the fact that petitioner
remains in custody since 05.08.2025, where investigation of this
case is already completed, accordingly, above-named petitioner is
directed to be released on bail, furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Magistrate - 1 st
Class, East Champaran/concerned court, in connection with
Harsiddhi P.S. Case No. 378 of 2024, subject to the condition as
laid down under Section 437(3) Cr.P.C/Section 480(3) of the
Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (in short “B.N.S.S.”).
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
Rajeev/-
U T
Checking your session…