Patna High Court
Anil KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- JITENDRA KUMAR
Holding
The Court granted bail, holding that a confessional statement of a co‑accused without corroborative material does not justify denial of bail.
Summary
Anil Kumar petitioned the Patna High Court for bail in a case (Mahua P.S. Case No. 386 of 2025) involving alleged cyber‑crime, narcotic offences and a tax offence, with charges under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 61(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S, Sections 8(c) and 21(b) of the NDPS Act and Section 66 of the I.T. Act. The only link to the petitioner was his name appearing in a confessional statement of a co‑accused seized during a raid; no direct material or eyewitness evidence was presented against him. The petitioner argued that the confessional statement has no evidentiary value, he has no criminal antecedents and he had not previously applied for anticipatory or regular bail. The State opposed the bail on the ground of the seriousness of the offences. The Court held that, in the absence of any material evidence and given the lack of evidentiary value of the confessional statement, bail should be granted, subject to conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S 2023. Accordingly, the bail petition was allowed, directing the petitioner to surrender within eight weeks and furnish bail bonds of Rs.10,000 with two sureties.
Issues considered
- Whether bail can be granted when the only allegation against the petitioner is his name in a co‑accused's confessional statement lacking evidentiary value
- Whether the petitioner’s lack of prior criminal antecedents and absence of material evidence justify bail despite serious charges under the B.N.S, NDPS and I.T. Acts
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 316(2), 318(4), 3(5), 61(2)
- B.N.S.S., 2023 — s. 482(2)
- I.T. Act — s. 66
- NDPS Act — s. 21(b), 8(c)
Subjects
- bail
- confessional statement
- evidentiary value
- NDPS Act
- cyber crime
- narcotic offences
- anticipatory bail
- criminal antecedents
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85771 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-386 Year-2025 Thana- MAHUA District- Vaishali
======================================================
Anil Kumar, Son of Harendra Prasad Singh, R/o - Madhaul, P.S. - Mahua,
District - Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shankar Paswan, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Upendra Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 02-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, apprehending his arrest,
in connection with Mahua P.S. Case No. 386 of 2025 dated
22.03.2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 316(2), 318(4), 61(2), 3(5) of B.N.S and Sections 8(c),
21(b) of NDPS Act and Section 66 of I.T. Act.
3. As per allegation, Police got information that some
persons are committing cyber crime and consuming narcotic
drugs. On raid, five persons were found sitting together who are
co-accused in this case and in the confessional statement of one
of the apprehended persons, the name of petitioner transpired
that they committed cyber crime as per guidance of the
petitioner.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85771 of 2025(4) dt.02-04-2026
2/3
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this
case. He further submits that petitioner has not been arrested on
the spot. There is no allegation of direct complicity of the
petitioner in the alleged offence. His name has transpired only in
the confessional statement of co-accused before the police
which has no evidentiary value. He also submits that even the
persons who were apprehended on the spot were not found to be
committing any cyber crime. Except three mobiles and some
Whatsapp chat, there is no allegation of any concrete material
against the co-accused let alone the present petitioner.
5. It is also stated in paragraph no. 2 of the bail
petition that the petitioner has not moved this Court earlier
either for anticipatory bail or regular one in the instant case.
6. It has further been stated in paragraph no.3 of the
bail petition that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.
7. However, learned APP for the State vehemently
opposes the prayer of the Petitioner for bail.
8. Considering that there is no material against the
petitioner and his name has transpired in the confessional
statement of co-accused before the Police which has no
evidentiary value, this petition is allowed, directing the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85771 of 2025(4) dt.02-04-2026
3/3
petitioner, above-named, to be enlarged on bail, in the event of
his arrest or surrender before the court below within a period of
eight weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of
this order, on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.
10,000 /- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount
each to the satisfaction of learned concerned court below in
connection with Mahua P.S. Case No. 386 of 2025, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the
B.N.S.S 2023, and on the following conditions:
(i) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court
below that the petitioner has any criminal antecedent, learned
court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner after
hearing him and getting satisfied that the petitioner has
concealed his criminal antecedents despite his knowledge of the
same.
(ii) In case, it is brought to the notice of the court
below that statement regarding previous bail petition is wrong,
learned court below shall cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Jitendra Kumar, J)
S.Ali/-
U T
Checking your session…