Patna High Court
Nitish Kumar @ Rama Shankar Singh@Rama ShankarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The Court allowed the petition for regular bail, directing the petitioner’s release on bond with conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Nitish Kumar, was arrested in connection with a robbery alleged under Sections 310(2), 317(3) and 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, wherein a motorcycle was surrounded and gold, cash and a camera were stolen at gunpoint. The prosecution claimed the petitioner participated in the theft, but no stolen articles were recovered from his possession and he had not been subjected to a test identification parade. The petitioner contended his innocence and highlighted the prolonged custody since 3 August 2025 without the charge being proved. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences. Considering the length of custody, lack of identification, and absence of material evidence, the Court granted regular bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties and imposed conditions regarding court attendance and non‑tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriateness of granting regular bail to an accused charged with offences under Sections 310(2), 317(3) and 111 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
- Does the absence of a test identification parade and lack of recovered stolen property justify bail despite the seriousness of the alleged crimes?
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 111, 310(2), 317(3)
Subjects
- regular bail
- criminal procedure
- robbery
- identification parade
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- court conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.91222 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-37 Year-2025 Thana- MURAR District- Buxar
======================================================
Nitish Kumar @ Rama Shankar Singh@Rama Shankar S/O Chotelal Singh
Resident of village-Sahadat Dihra Shahadat, P.s.- Dawath, Dist.- Rohtas
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
3 22-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with
Murar P. S. Case No. 37 of 2025 registered for the offences
punishable under Sections 310(2), 317(3), 111 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita.
3. As per prosecution case, this petitioner along with
other F.I.R. named accused persons surrounded the motorcycle
of informant and looted gold locket, Rs. 700 cash and a video
camera at the point of pistol and threw his motorcycle key in
bushes.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. No stolen
article has been recovered from possession of the petitioner.
Apprehended co-accused disclosed the name of this petitioner as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.91222 of 2025(3) dt.22-04-2026
2/2
the one who managed to flee away from the place of occurrence.
Till date, petitioner has not been put on Test Identification
Parade. Petitioner is in custody since 03.08.2025. Charge has
already been framed.
5. However, learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently
opposed the bail application.
6. Considering the period of custody and progress of
the trial, this bail application is allowed. The petitioner, above
named, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond
of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District &
Additional Sessions Judge II, Buxar in connection with Murar P.
S. Case No. 37 of 2025 with further conditions:-
‘(i) Petitioner shall remain physically present in the
learned Trial Court on each date and shall co-operate in the trial.
(ii) In case the petitioner is absent on two consecutive
dates without sufficient reasons, learned Trial Court would be at
liberty to cancel bail bond of the petitioner.
(iii) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the
witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for
cancellation of bail.’
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
Navya/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.