Patna High Court
Sudesh KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted at this stage due to the seriousness of the offences, the petitioner’s extensive criminal antecedents and the risk of non‑co‑operation, and ordered the trial to be completed within six months.
Summary
Sudesh Kumar was arrested on charges of theft of oil from an Indian Oil Corporation pipeline, alleged to have violated Sections 379, 440 and 120(B) of the IPC, sections 15(2), 15(4) and 16 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipe Line (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 and Section 7 of the E.C. Act. The petitioner contended that the case was filed against unknown miscreants, that he was framed after being apprehended in a separate case, and highlighted his 16 prior criminal cases. The State argued that the petitioner was the mastermind of the theft and pointed to the denial of bail to co‑accused in similar cases (Cr. Misc. Nos. 51065 of 2024 and 54167 of 2024). The court examined the seriousness of the offences, the petitioner’s extensive criminal antecedents and the risk of non‑co‑operation, and found these factors outweighed the presumption of innocence. Consequently, the court refused regular bail but directed the trial court to expedite the trial and conclude it within six months, allowing the petitioner to renew his bail plea thereafter. The petitioner was ordered to cooperate with the trial, with the liberty to apply for bail again after the six‑month period if the trial remains pending.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner given the nature of the offences and his prior criminal antecedents.
- Whether the petitioner poses a risk of non‑co‑operation or tampering with evidence that justifies denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- E.C. Act — s. 7
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120(B), 379, 440
Subjects
- bail
- theft of oil
- pipeline
- criminal conspiracy
- prior criminal antecedents
- trial expedite
- Indian Penal Code
- Petroleum and Minerals Pipe Line Act
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.88751 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-584 Year-2023 Thana- BARH District- Patna
======================================================
Sudesh Kumar S/o Vishram Singh R/o Mohalla - Bidhula, P.S.- Bidhula,
Distt.- Auraiya, U.P.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Pipelines Division, Barauni, Kanpur,
Pipeline India
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 06-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. The petitioner has prayed for regular bail in a case
registered for the offence punishable under Sections 379, 440 &
120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 15(2), 15(4) and
16 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipe Line (Acquisition of Right
of User in Land) Act, 1962 and under Section 7 of the E.C. Act.
3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that the
petitioner is accused of committing theft of oil from the Indian Oil
Corporation pipeline.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
case was filed against unknown miscreants. It has been submitted
that the petitioner was apprehended in Athmalgola P.S. Case no. 45
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.88751 of 2025(2) dt.06-01-2026
2/2
of 2024 and after that he was framed in other cases. The petitioner
is having criminal antecedent of 16 cases which is clear from the
supplementary affidavit.
5. Learned counsel for the IOCL has submitted that the
petitioner is the master mind. He is resident of Mathura and it has
also been submitted that the bail application of similarly situated
co-accused, namely, Manish Kumar, Sudarshan Lal, Aryan Raj and
Pramod Kumar were rejected by the learned Co-ordinate Bench
vide Cr. Misc. Nos. 51065 of 2024 and 54167 of 2024. The case of
this petitioner stands on similar footing.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this
stage, however, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial
so as to conclude the trial within a period of six months as the
petitioner is in custody since 11.03.2024. The petitioner is at
liberty to renew his prayer for bail after six months if the trial is
not concluded. Petitioner is directed to co-operate in the trial. This
privilege of liberty will not be applicable if the petitioner does not
co-operate in trial.
(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)
durgesh/-
U T
Checking your session…