Prince Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24229 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-64 Year-2024 Thana- SINDHUGAR District- Gaya ====================================================== Prince Kumar S/o Narayan Yadav Resident of village -Bhawani Bigha, PSMohanpur, Distt- Gaya ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Brijmohan Das For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-05-2026 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Sindhugarh PS Case No. 64 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 394 of the IPC.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody since 3-12-2025 and the informant alleges that on 12-6-2024 at 7 pm, while he was returning home, when two unknown accused intercepted him and looted his mobile, cash Rs. 20,500/- and a motorcycle on point of pistol. It is next alleged that few days back, Preman, Manoj, Guddu, Vinod and Dilip had abused and threatened him hence based on suspicion, informant alleges that occurrence might have been committed at their instance. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR and suspicion is raised against

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.24229 of 2026(2) dt.08-05-2026 2/2 named accused persons and his name transpired in the confessional statement of Vikram in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value.

5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State, Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad, vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits no doubt name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of Vikram in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value, but then the looted mobile was recovered from Vikram and Vikram from the looted mobile had called and talked to the petitioner several times and also named the petitioner in his confession of being involved in the occurrence of loot.

6.

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

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

8.

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

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T