Patna High Court
JITENDRA KUMAR RAY @ RAJ @ JITENDRA KUMAR RAJversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the court was not convinced that the petitioner warranted such protection.
Summary
The petitioner, Jitendra Kumar Ray, applied for anticipatory bail anticipating arrest in a case involving robbery under Section 392 IPC, later amended to include Sections 412 and 120(B) IPC. He claimed that the FIR was initially against unknown persons and that his implication arose solely from a confessional statement of an apprehended co-accused, which he argued lacks evidentiary value. The State opposed the bail, highlighting that the petitioner’s name appeared in the confessional statement and that CCTV footage placed the accused at the scene, along with the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedent. The court considered the risk of the petitioner absconding and the ongoing investigation. Concluding that the material on record did not justify granting anticipatory bail, the court rejected the petitioner's application.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances of the case
- Whether a confessional statement of an accused in police custody can be the sole basis for implicating the petitioner
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120B, 392, 412
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- IPC Section 392
- IPC Section 412
- IPC Section 120B
- confessional statement
- CCTV evidence
- robbery
- criminal conspiracy
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81393 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-100 Year-2018 Thana- SAMASTIPUR District- Samastipur
======================================================
JITENDRA KUMAR RAY @ RAJ @ JITENDRA KUMAR RAJ S/o-
Birendra Ray R/v- Kashipur W.No-7, Ps- Town Dist- Samastipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rakesh Kumar Sinha
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Sharda Kumari
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 13-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his
arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 392 of the I.P.C. and later on Sections 412 and 120(B)
of the Indian Penal Code was also added.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant
alleges that he along with Dipak on a motorcycle were going to
deposit Rs.7,50,000/- in the bank when they were intercepted by
two unknown accused who snatched Rs.7,50,000/- and fled with
co-accused who was waiting for them on a motorcycle.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the FIR was against unknown and the petitioner during the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81393 of 2025(2) dt.13-01-2026
2/2
course of investigation came to be implicated based on
confessional statement of apprehended accused in police
custody, which does not have any evidentiary value.
5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail
application and submits that no doubt, name of the petitioner
transpired in the confessional statement of apprehended accused
in police custody, but then, from perusal of the order impugned,
it would manifest that the apprehended accused was seen in the
CCTV footage. It is also submitted that investigation of the case
is continuing and petitioner has antecedent of one case and in
the event, if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted, the
petitioner may abscond.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail
stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
vikash/-
U T
Checking your session…