Sandeep Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10154 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-64 Year-2024 Thana- SINDHUGAR District- Gaya ====================================================== Sandeep Kumar Son of Raghu Yadav Resident of village - Jarlahi, P.S.- Sindugarh, District - Gaya.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Satya Veer For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Kumar Ranjit Ranjan ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 04-05-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in Sindugarh P. S. Case No.64 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 30.10.2025 and is a person with clean antecedent. It is next submitted that informant alleges that two unknown accused intercepted him on 12.06.2024 at 7.00 P.M. while he was returning home on his motorcycle and on point of gun looted his mobile, Rs.20,500/- and the motorcycle.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR and during course of investigation his name transpired in the confession of Vikram in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10154 of 2026(2) dt.04-05-2026 2/2 police custody, which does not have any evidentiary value.

5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the bail application and submits that name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of Vikram but then looted motorcycle was recovered from the house of Vikram and Vikram in his confession before the police accepted his participation in the occurrence along with the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner does not dispute the said submission of the learned APP, but then submits that petitioner is a student and is a young boy aged about 21 years and in support of the fact that petitioner is a student, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner relies on an Annexure-2 to the bail application.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on regular bail.

8. The prayer of the petitioner for regular bail stands rejected.

9. However, petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T