Patna High Court
Satish Singh @ Satish KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court granted bail to the petitioner subject to conditions.
Summary
Satish Singh was arrested in connection with a robbery in which a large sum of money and firearms were recovered. He alleged that he was merely a passer‑by and was falsely implicated, asserting no criminal antecedent and that the seized items were not linked to him. The prosecution opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act. The court noted the petitioner had been in custody since 20‑09‑2025 and, after considering the circumstances, granted bail on a personal bond with two sureties and several conditions. The order emphasized that the bail does not prejudice the trial and that any violation could lead to cancellation.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail despite being charged under Sections 310(2) and 317(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 25(1‑b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.
- Whether the length of pre‑trial detention and the claim of false implication justify granting bail.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-b)a, 26, 35
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 310(2), 317(3)
Subjects
- bail
- robbery
- arms possession
- false implication
- pre‑trial detention
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85543 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-970 Year-2025 Thana- GAYA MUFASIL District- Gaya
======================================================
Satish Singh @ Satish Kumar, S/o Babu Ram Singh, R/o Vill. - Hario, P.S. -
Magadh Medical, Distt. - Gaya ji.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Raj Ballabh Singh, Addl. P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 08-01-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner, who is in custody, seeks bail in
connection with Muffasil (Gaya) P.S. Case No. 970 of 2025
registered for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 310(2)
and 317(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.) and
Section(s) 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant has
stated that he had taken a loan of Rs. 4,24,000/- from his
relatives in order to double the money. He was waiting at a
certain point where a Scorpio car approached him and around
six people snatched away the said amount from him and they try
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85543 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
2/4
to flee. However, the police reached there and apprehended two
persons, namely, Satish Singh (the petitioner) and Dayanand
Kumar Bharti. The police thereafter recovered the looted
amount alongwith two loaded country made pistols, extra
registration plates and mobile phones from their possession.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and he
is no where connected with the said offence. It has next been
submitted that the petitioner was merely a passer-by and the
police, on suspicion, has arrested him. However, the petitioner
has no concern with the other co-accused person, namely,
Dayanand Kumar Bharti. It has further been submitted that the
petitioner is pursuing his Diploma in Mechanical Engineering
from Chandigarh and that he has no concern with the aforesaid
snatching of the amount and the same has also not been
recovered from his conscious possession as shown by the police.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has further drawn the
attention of this Court towards two seizure-list, which would
suffice that at 2:20 P.M., the one of the seizure-list, i.e., the
recovery from the Scorpio car has been shown while the other
seizure-list of recovery of a motorcycle, which belongs to the
sister of the petitioner, is said to have been recovered at 7:40
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85543 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
3/4
P.M. from some other place, which creates doubt in the
prosecution story. It has been submitted that the petitioner is
neither the owner of the Scorpio car nor the driver of the same
and hence, he has falsely been implicated in this case. It has
lastly been submitted that the petitioner carries no criminal
antecedent and he is in custody since 20.09.2025.
5. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State
has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
6. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances
of the case and taking note of the fact that the petitioner has
remained in custody since 20.09.2025, let the petitioner, above-
named, be released on bail on his 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
case is pending/successor Court in connection with Muffasil
(Gaya) P.S. Case No. 970 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 a local resident.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present
before the concerned Court on each and every date of the
trial and shall cooperate in the investigation.
(iii) In case of absence for two consecutive occasions
or in violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the
petitioner will be liable to be cancelled by the concerned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85543 of 2025(2) dt.08-01-2026
4/4
Court.
(iv) If the petitioner, in future, is found to be
involved in similar nature of offence(s), the prosecution
shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail
bond.
(v) The concerned Court shall verify the criminal
antecedent of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is
found that he has concealed his criminal antecedent, the
Court concerned shall take necessary steps for cancellation
of his bail bond. However, the acceptance of bail bond in
terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed
for purpose of or in the name of verification.
7. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made
in this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Praveen-II/-
U T
Checking your session…