SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 3068

PATNA HIGH COURT
CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH, J
Bikram Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.80932 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Pankaj Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. Khurshid Anwar, APP

The undue length of custody and lack of evidence warrant the granting of bail during pending trials.

Headnote:This judgment concerns a bail application under Sections 303(2), 310(2) and 317(2) of the B.N.S. The petitioner claims innocence and asserts false implication, citing lack of identification and no recovery from his possession. The court finds merit in the arguments, considering the period of custody, and grants bail upon bond conditions.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH ORAL ORDER

2 08-12-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Aurangabad Town P.S. Case No. 392 of 2025 dated 24.06.2025 registered for the offence/s punishable under Sections 303(2), 310(2) and 317(2)

of the B.N.S.

3. As per the prosecution case, unknown miscreant is alleged to have stolen the truck of the informant which was parked in front of Yamaha Showroom, Gandhi Nagar, Ward No.33 and said that, all original documents of truck were kept in the said truck.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. The name of the petitioner has sprung up in this case on mere suspicion. No T.I.P. has been conducted by the prosecution. It is further submitted that in para-40 of the case diary, the confessional statement of the co-accused Kundan Kumar @ Raj Kumar Raju has been recorded, on the basis of which the stolen truck was recovered from the garage of Sanjay Body Builder, Golpur Road. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has no concern with the alleged offence. The petitioner has one criminal antecedent as stated in para 3 of the bail petition. The petitioner is in custody since 02.07.2025. The co-accused person has already been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 22.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 62889 of 2025.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the bail petition of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as the period of custody, the petitioner above- named, is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail-bond of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Court concerned, Aurangabad in connection with Aurangabad Town P.S. Case No. 392 of 2025.

7. The application stands allowed.

(Chandra Prakash Singh, J)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top