Ramesh Kumar Jha v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25205 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-113 Year-2025 Thana- SAMASTIPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== Ramesh Kumar Jha son of Raj Kumar Jha @ Late Ram Kumar Jha Resident of Village- Jagdishpur Adharpur PS -Karpurigram District -Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 25394 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-113 Year-2025 Thana- SAMASTIPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== Abhishek Kumar @ Abhishek Gupta @ Rajan @ Ranjan S/O Uma Shankar Prasad R/O Vill - Dudhpura, Ward No. 6, P.S.- Muffasil, Dist.- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 25205 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 25394 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Anant Kumar 1, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY CAV ORDER 05-05-2026 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners have prayed for regular bail in connection with Samastipur Town P.S. Case No. 113 of 2025 instituted for the offence under Section 310(2) of BNS and Section 27 of the Arms Act which was earlier rejected vide
2/6 order dated 22.01.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. Nos. 69545/ 2025 & 69807/25 with an observation that the petitioners may renew their prayer for bail after the evidence of the informant and other witnesses, if they do not support the case of the prosecution.
3. Learned counsels for the petitioners have filed the depositions of the witnesses.
4. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are innocent and have committed no offence. Moreover, they are languishing in judicial custody since 24.06.2025 and 25.06.2025 respectively.
5. The main allegation against the petitioner, namely, Abhishek is that Abhishek was the valuer of the bank and he had a conversation with the accused persons and on his input, this offense was committed. The name of this petitioner has surfaced during the course of investigation on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Munshi and petitioner Ramesh Kumar Jha. In their confessional statement, it has come that the petitioner Abhishek has passed the confidential details regarding the gold kept in the bank locker. Co-accused Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Munshi and petitioner Ramesh Jha have disclosed the role of the co-accused in the alleged occurrence in their confessional disclosure and
3/6 this petitioner has also given his confessional statement. From perusal of the case diary, it is clear that the petitioner is the valuer of the Bank of Maharashtra and he had an opportunity to visit the Bank of Maharashtra, Kashipur Samastipur, where the occurrence has taken place and as a valuer, he was also having the information regarding the gold and jewellery kept in locker and this input was given by him to the co-accused persons. The kind of offence which has been committed where jewellery worth crores have been looted from the bank. In such crimes without the confidential information, no offence is committed. First requisite of such offence is that the accused persons collect the input from available resources. Though the petitioner shows himself as innocent as he has no active role in the occurrence of the crime but the role which has been disclosed by the coaccused persons in their confessional statements is of providing input which is serious in nature.
6. As far as petitioner, namely, Ramesh Jha is concerned, he is having criminal antecedent of two cases and he is on bail in those cases and the name of this petitioner has surfaced on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Munshi. It is clear from the diary that from the house of this petitioner, various documents of banks
4/6 were recovered. This petitioner has also given his confessional statement and in his confessional statement he has stated that he has taken gold loan of Rs. 3 lakh from Bank of Baroda, Kashipur, Samastipur after mortgaging 150 gram of gold. During audit, it has come that purity of the gold was below standard. After that, a case was filed against him by the bank. After that he came to know that in connivance with the valuer, loan can be obtained while mortgaging substandard gold. He came in contact with petitioner Abhishek who is the valuer of the bank and with his connivance, he has mortgaged 200 grams of substandard gold in Bank of Maharashtra and has taken loan of Rs. 23 lakhs and has further stated that Abhishek disclosed him every details of the locker. Petitioner Ramesh Kumar Jha was scared of any audit.
Abhishek Kumar introduced him with one Sunil and Sunil gave a report favouring the petitioner Ramesh and gave all the details of the gold. The petitioner was scared of audit as he has mortgaged substandard gold. He planned to commit dacoity and disclosed his intention to Deepak Munsi and in this organized manner, the offence was committed. These are the brief allegations/facts of this case.
7. Now coming to the deposition of the informant. In this case, informant has been examined as P.W.-2. In
5/6 examination in chief, the informant has identified both the petitioners and in cross-examination on behalf of petitioner Abhishek Kumar, it has come that certain complaints were received against him who was the valuer of the bank. This goes to show that the role of Abhishek Kumar was dubious even prior to the occurrence. As far as the cross-examination on behalf of petitioner Ramesh Jha is concerned, the informant has stated that this petitioner has taken gold loan from the bank and has not repaid the loan. His loan account is still running. He is having two loan accounts in the bank and that he used to come to bank alone. This statement of the informant goes to show that the conduct of the petitioners which has emerged in the evidence of the informant is of dubious nature. There were complaints against Petitioner Abhishek.
Petitioner Ramesh Jha who was having loan accounts, was a regular visitor of the bank and the role which has been attributed against them during investigation is that they have given the input regarding the gold which was kept in the locker of the bank which is the subject matter of the offence.
8. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of this
6/6 case as well as the nature of offence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage. As such, their prayer for bail stands rejected.
10. Petitioners may be at liberty to renew their prayer for bail after six months if the trial is not concluded.
11. Learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within the stipulated period of time. (Ashok Kumar Pandey, J) Shubham/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 01.05.2026 Uploading Date 05.05.2026 Transmission Date 05.05.2026