Patna High Court
Pappu @ Pappu Nunia @ Pappu Kumar @ Pappu Ninia @ Pappu Mahto @ Pappu NoniaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court held that bail may be granted notwithstanding the recovery of mobile phones, provided the petitioner complies with strict conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Pappu Nunia, was arrested in connection with a case alleging theft of mobile phones, with 84 phones recovered and 11 allegedly found in his backpack. He contended that he was falsely implicated and that no conscious possession could be proved. The State opposed bail, emphasizing the recovery of phones from the petitioner. The court examined the facts, the seriousness of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the petitioner’s criminal antecedent. It concluded that bail could be granted, subject to stringent conditions including sureties, personal appearance, and police monitoring. The order also stipulated that any violation could lead to cancellation of bail.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner despite the recovery of mobile phones and the nature of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 303(2), 317(4), 317(5), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- theft
- mobile phones
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- possession
- recovery
- conditions of bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85325 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-317 Year-2025 Thana- Sahayak Khajanchi District- Purnia
======================================================
Pappu @ Pappu Nunia @ Pappu Kumar @ Pappu Ninia @ Pappu Mahto @
Pappu Nonia, Son of Gujja Mahto, Resident of Village - Babupur, Near -
Railway Crossing Shiv Mandir, Tinpahar, P.S.- Tinpahar, District- Sahebganj
(Jharkhand)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raj Krishna Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 06-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in
connection with Sahayak (Khazanchi) P.S. Case No. 317 of
2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections
303(2), 317(4), 317(5), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has
alleged that he got information that seven persons, including the
petitioner, were planning to flee to Bengal after stealing mobile
phones from different areas in and around Purnea. Acting on the
tip-off, the informant arrived at the place of occurrence and
apprehended seven persons, including the petitioner and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85325 of 2025(2) dt.06-01-2026
2/4
altogether 84 mobile phones were recovered and seizure list was
prepared.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and no
such recovery, as alleged, has been made from his conscious
possession. It has been submitted that from the seizure list, it
would appear that the place of recovery is said to be the shed at
a bus stand and, therefore, no conscious possession of the
petitioner could be proved from the same. It has next been
submitted that the petitioner has only one criminal case against
his name and the charge-sheet has already been submitted and
he is in custody since 17.09.2025.
5. The learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the
prayer for bail and has stated that altogether 11 mobile phones
were recovered from the backpack, which was being carried by
the petitioner and was apprehended at the bus stand.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by the
parties and taking into account the recovery of the mobile
phones, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail,
after framing of charges, on furnishing bail bond of Rs.
10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85325 of 2025(2) dt.06-01-2026
3/4
case is pending/successor court in connection with Sahayak
(Khazanchi) P.S. Case No. 317 of 2025, subject to the following
conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner
shall be his close relative and the other shall be
local resident.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically
present in Court on each date of the trial.
(iii) In case of absence on two
consecutive dates or in violation of the terms of the
bail, the bail bond of the petitioner will be liable to
be cancelled by the court concerned.
(iv) If the petitioner is found involved in
similar nature of offence in future, the prosecution
shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of his
bail bond.
(v) The learned 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.
(vi) In view of the antecedent of the
petitioner, the petitioner is directed to appear before
the Superintendent of Police, Purnea within fifteen
days of his release with a copy of this order and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85325 of 2025(2) dt.06-01-2026
4/4
every two weeks thereafter for the next nine
months. The conduct of the petitioner will be kept
under watch in this period by the Superintendent of
Police concerned and if it is found wanting in any
respect, a report shall be made to the court
concerned by him to initiate a proceeding for
cancellation of bail for reasons of misuse of bail.
After reporting to the Superintendent of Police, a
certificate will be filed by the petitioner before the
court concerned.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed.
8. It is made clear that the observation, if any, made in
this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
manoj/-
U T
Checking your session…