Patna High Court
Sunny Kumar @ Sanni KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to bail, subject to bond and conditions, as the prosecution has not produced material beyond a confessional statement.
Summary
Sunny Kumar was arrested in connection with a robbery and hostage‑taking at a Tanishq showroom, alleged to have been involved in arranging a stolen motorcycle and weapons. He applied for bail, contending that his name does not appear in the FIR and that the only link to him is a confessional statement of a co‑accused. The prosecution argued that the confessional statement and the case diary implicate him, and highlighted his antecedent of eight cases. The court observed that no substantive material beyond the confessional statement was produced and that the petitioner’s non‑inclusion in the FIR weakens the prosecution’s case. Consequently, the court granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions of cooperation, presence in court, and non‑tampering with evidence. The order also directed verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent without delaying bail.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail for offences under Sections 310(2) and 111(2) of the Bihar Penal Code despite being implicated only through a co‑accused’s confessional statement.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior criminal antecedents justify denial of bail.
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- confessional statement
- antecedent
- robbery
- hostage taking
- Section 310
- Section 111
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84107 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-171 Year-2025 Thana- ARA NAGAR District- Bhojpur
======================================================
Sunny Kumar @ Sanni Kumar Son of Akhilesh Rai R/o Village - Majholi,
P.S. - Vidupur, Dist. - Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Aman Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Amitesh Kumar, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
5 25-03-2026 Heard Mr. Aman Kumar Singh, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since
10.03.2025 in connection with Ara Town P.S. Case No. 171 of
2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 310(2) and
111(2) of BNS.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 10.03.2025
informant Vinod Kumar, employed as Assistant Store Manager
of Tanishq Showroom, at about 10:21 A.M. noticed two accused
persons entered the store posing like customer interested to buy
a ring. After 3-4 minutes, three other accused persons entered by
overpowering the security guard and gunmen and seized their
weapons. Staffs on the ground floor were taken as hostage at
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84107 of 2025(5) dt.25-03-2026
2/4
gunpoint. Two other criminals then entered and started looting
jewelleries on the first floor of the showroom. One female staff
who attempted to call for help was abused and her phone was
taken by them. Then one another female staff escaped the first
floor and alerted the second-floor staff about the loot but
accused persons followed her to the second floor and made loot
in both floors. One staff got injury on his head by the butt of the
pistol in course of protest. Accused has made loot of total 678
jewellery of value Rs. 10,09,59,820 (Ten Crores Nine Lakhs
Fifty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty Only) and Rs.
31,968 (Thirty One Thousand Nine Hundred and Sixty Eight
Only) in cash.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is not named in the FIR and name of the petitioner has
transpired during the investigation on the basis of confessional
statement of co-accused Gautam Kumar. Learned counsel for
the petitioner further submits that except the confessional
statement of co-accused, no cogent material has come during the
course of investigation to suggest the involvement of petitioner
in the present occurrence. It is further submitted that co-accused
person namely, Pritam Kumar @ Chhota @ Chhotu has been
granted bail vide order dated 22.01.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84107 of 2025(5) dt.25-03-2026
3/4
62695 of 2025 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. It is next
submitted that police after investigation has submitted charge-
sheet and petitioner is in custody since 10.05.2025.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State, on the other hand, has vehemently opposed the prayer for
bail of the petitioner and submits that name of the petitioner has
transpired during investigation on the basis of confessional
statement of co-accused namely, Gautam Kumar and from
perusal of the case diary it appears that the petitioner has
arranged the stolen motorcycle and weapons for committing the
crime in question. It is next submitted that petitioner has
antecedent of eights cases out of which petitioner is on bail in
seven cases.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing
bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of
the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned
Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Bhojpur at Ara in connection
with Ara Town P.S. Case No. 171 of 2025, subject to the
following conditions:-
i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be
properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84107 of 2025(5) dt.25-03-2026
4/4
and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and
on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient
reason, his bail bond shall be canceled by the Court below.
ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall
verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his
criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the
acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order
shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Gaurav Sinha/-
U T
Checking your session…