Patna High CourtCR. MISC./23235/2026bail rejected

Paro Mandal @ Arun Mandal v. The State Of Bihar

2026-05-12Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23235 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-345 Year-2022 Thana- DHORAIYA District- Banka ====================================================== Paro Mandal @ Arun Mandal S/o Late Kailash Mandal Resident of VillageBabupur, P.S.- Sabour, District- Bhagalpur (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pratyush Pratap Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Amitesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 12-05-2026

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

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Dhoraiya P.S. Case No.345 of 2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedents of five cases and is in custody since 08.01.2026 and the informant alleges that his motorcycle was stolen.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was against unknown and the name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of apprehended accused as such petitioner moved this Court seeking anticipatory bail by

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23235 of 2026(2) dt.12-05-2026 2/2 filing Cr. Misc. No.75706/2025 and the same came to be rejected by an order dated 20.11.2025. Learned counsel submits that confessional statement in police custody does not have any evidentiary value.

5. The learned APP vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that FIR was against unknown and the name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of apprehended accused but then petitioner is a habitual offender and if privilege of regular bail is granted, the petitioner may abscond.

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

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

8. Accordingly, the regular bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T