Rahul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12524 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-106 Year-2019 Thana- MAKHDUMPUR District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Rahul Kumar S/o Sharwan Paswan R/o Village - Ward no. 12, Panchanpur, P.S - Panchanpur, District - Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pritish Kumar Lal, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ahmad Ali, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 27-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 106 of 2019 registered for the offence punishable under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on the night of 12.03.2019, six miscreants entered the house of the informant through the roof. They inquired about Jitendra Kumar and demanded articles and began to assault them. They have assaulted the inmates and have snatched Jewelries and household articles. It is also alleged that they have fired at one Jitendra.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submits that in the FIR, it is also alleged that the miscreants have

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12524 of 2026(2) dt.27-02-2026 2/2 looted the smartphone of Redmi company. After two years of filing of this case, it has been found that in that mobile, a SIM was used which was issued in the name of this petitioner. He also submits that nothing has been recovered from his possession; even the mobile phone has not been recovered from his possession. The only allegation is that in the stolen mobile, the SIM that was used, is issued in the name of the petitioner. Moreover, a statement has been made in para 3 of the petition that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since 26.10.2025.

5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Jehanabad in connection with Makhdumpur P.S. Case No. 106 of 2019.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Sudhanshu/- U T