Patna High Court
Ranjan KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- KHATIM REZA
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted at this stage due to the seriousness of the offence, recovery of stolen articles from the petitioner, and his prior similar conviction.
Summary
The petitioner, Ranjan Kumar, applied for bail in a case of robbery at gunpoint under Section 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (equivalent to Section 395 IPC). He claimed innocence, alleging that his name was added to the FIR based on a coerced confessional statement of a co‑accused and that the police forced his signature on a blank paper. The State opposed bail, pointing to the recovery of stolen jewellery from the petitioner’s possession and his prior conviction for a similar offence. The Court considered the gravity of the offence, the recovery of stolen articles, and the petitioner’s criminal antecedent, and concluded that bail could not be granted at this stage. Consequently, the bail petition was dismissed and the trial was directed to be expedited within a year.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a robbery‑at‑gunpoint case under Section 310(2) BNS/Section 395 IPC.
- Whether the alleged coercion of the petitioner’s signature and the reliance on a co‑accused’s statement affect the bail decision.
- Whether the petitioner’s prior conviction for a similar offence makes him a habitual offender justifying denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 310(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 395
Subjects
- bail
- robbery
- firearms
- habitual offender
- Section 310(2) BNS
- Section 395 IPC
- high court
- trial expedite
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 87429 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-394 Year-2025 Thana- GORAUL District- Vaishali
======================================================
Ranjan Kumar S/o Late Surendra Singh R/o Village- Bhagwatpur, P.S-
Vaishali, Dist- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Shivjee Singh, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Suman Kumari Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KHATIM REZA
ORAL ORDER
3 11-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Goraul
PS Case No. 394 of 2025 dated 11-07-2025, instituted for the
offence punishable under Section 310(2) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 corresponding to Section 395 of the Indian
Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was
one of the members of a group of 5-6 persons who in
furtherance of their common intention committed robbery at gun
point on 11.07.2025 at about 9:44 PM at Kolkata Alankar
Jewellers and Utensils Store, situated at Inayat Nagar. It is
alleged that the accused persons while armed with firearms
threatened the informant and forcibly looted approximately 440
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 87429 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
2/3
grams of gold jewellery worth about Rs. 34 lakhs, 7 kg 155
grams of silver jewellery worth about Rs. 5 lakhs along with his
Vivo mobile phone and Aadhaar card, and thereafter fled away
from the place of occurrence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the
present case. It is further submitted that the FIR was instituted
against unknown persons and the name of the petitioner
surfaced only on the basis of the alleged confessional statement
of co-accused Kundan Kumar. It is further submitted that the
said co-accused is a co-villager of the petitioner and due to
personal grudge has falsely implicated him in the present case.
Learned counsel further submits that the alleged recovery is
wholly false and that the police forcibly obtained the petitioner’s
signature on a blank paper, which was later converted into a
seizure list. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner is in
custody since 29.07.2025 and has only one criminal antecedent
bearing Vaishali P.S. Case No. 99 of 2024 under Section 395
IPC, in which he is already on bail. Charge-sheet has been
submitted in the instant case on 20.09.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed
the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner has been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No. 87429 of 2025(3) dt.11-02-2026
3/3
arrested in connection with the present case and stolen articles
have been recovered from his possession. It is further submitted
that other stolen articles were also recovered from the
possession of co-accused Kundan Kumar. It is next submitted
that the petitioner has a criminal antecedent of similar nature,
i.e., Vaishali P.S. Case No. 99 of 2024 under Section 395 IPC
and, therefore, he appears to be a habitual offender.
6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case, the nature and gravity of the allegation, the manner in
which the offence has been committed, the recovery of stolen
articles from the possession of the petitioner and his criminal
antecedent of similar nature, this Court is not inclined to grant
bail to the petitioner at this stage.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected.
8. However, the learned Trial Court is directed to
expedite the trial and take all endeavour to conclude the trial at
the earliest, preferably, within a period of one year from the date
of receipt or production of a copy of this order.
(Khatim Reza, J)
shyambihari/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.