Anil Kumar @ Suraj Saw @ Dhupa v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.27962 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-187 Year-2024 Thana- JAGDISHPUR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Anil Kumar @ Suraj Saw @ Dhupa Son of Somnath Sao @ Sobhnath Prasad @ Shobh Nat saw Resident of Village- Nonaur, P.S.- Sahar, District- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Dharmesh Kumar Shrivastava For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Pradeep Narain Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 16-06-2026 1.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2.
The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 392 of the IPC. 3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of six cases and is in custody since 88-2024 and the informant alleges that two unknown accused persons dashed his motorcycle from behind and the informant fell, thereafter the accused persons snatched key of his motorcycle and opened the dickey of his motorcycle and looted Rs. 1,83,900/- at point of gun and fled.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was against unknown and from perusal of the allegation as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27962 of 2026(3) dt.16-06-2026 2/3 alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the informant alleges that he was looted on the point of gun but then the FIR was not instituted under the Arms Act nor charges have been framed under the Arms Act. It is next submitted that petitioner was arrested in Charpokhari PS Case No. 133 of 2024 in which he was made to confess about his participation in the instant occurrence also. It is further submitted that name of the petitioner transpired in the instant case based on his confessional statement in a different case which is not admissible in evidence. It is also submitted that though charges against the petitioner was framed by an order dated 11-4-2025 but till date only one witness has been examined as would manifest from the report of the learned ACJM-1st, Bhojpur at Ara dated 26-5-2026 contained in Letter No. 35 of 2026. It is next submitted that if privilege of regular bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in the trial.
5.
Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner has antecedent of six cases and from perusal of the report dated 26-5-2026, it would manifest that one witness out of the five witnesses has been examined. It is also submitted that if
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.27962 of 2026(3) dt.16-06-2026 3/3 privilege of regular bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond.
6.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, let the petitioner above named be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 187 of 2024.
7.
One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his father, namely, Somnath Sao @ Sobhnath Prasad @ Shobh Nat. 8.
However, it is made clear that if the learned trial court comes to a conclusion that the petitioner after his release is trying to delay the trial in any manner or is not appearing in the trial on the date fixed without any plausible explanation, the learned trial court shall be at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T