Patna High Court
Ritesh Kumar @ Ritesh Kumar BaithaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
Anticipatory bail was denied as the specific, serious accusations and the identification on CCTV footage justified refusal of bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Ritesh Kumar, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a FIR alleging that he, along with a co‑accused, stabbed an informant and his wife and stole a mobile phone on 18 June 2025. The prosecution identified the petitioner through CCTV footage, while the petitioner contended that the footage was unreliable and that he was falsely implicated. The State opposed the bail, emphasizing the specific and grave nature of the accusations under Section 309(6) of the B.N.S. The court examined the credibility of the CCTV identification and the seriousness of the alleged offences. Considering the direct accusations and the gravity of the alleged crime, the court rejected the petition for anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petitioner remains liable to arrest under the pending criminal case.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail can be granted to the petitioner under Section 309(6) of the B.N.S. given the specific and serious nature of the allegations
- Whether identification of the petitioner through CCTV footage is sufficient to deny anticipatory bail
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 309(6)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- CCTV evidence
- identification
- Section 309(6)
- B.N.S.
- criminal procedure
- bail denial
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.84541 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-380 Year-2025 Thana- RAMNAGAR District- West Champaran
======================================================
Ritesh Kumar @ Ritesh Kumar Baitha Son of Rambhu Baitha Resident of
village- Mudila, Ps- Ramnagar, Dist- West Champaran
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Milind Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey, APP
For the Informant : Ms. Prerna Anand, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
2 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel for the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Section 309(6) of
the B.N.S..
3. As per the F.I.R, it is alleged that on 18.06.2025 at
about 03:00 A.M, this petitioner, along with co-accused Vishal
Ram, stabbed the informant and his wife, multiple times and
looted his mobile phone.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is quite innocent and has falsely been implicated in
the case. Petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case only
on the basis of C.C.T.V. footage, which has no evidentiary value
and identification is suspicious. Petitioner claims clean
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.84541 of 2025(2) dt.09-02-2026
2/2
antecedents.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State and
learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the
prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and have submitted that
there is specific accusation that this petitioner, along with co-
accused Vishal Ram, stabbed the informant and his wife and
snatched mobile phone of the informant. Petitioner has been
identified in the C.C.T.V. footage.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, specific and direct nature of accusation and gravity of
offence, prayer for grant of anticipatory bail of the petitioner is
rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…