Sudhanshu Kumar @ Bikki @ Rakesh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.33859 of 2026 Arising out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2023 Thana- UJIYARPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== Sudhanshu Kumar @ Bikki @ Rakesh Son of Mahesh Prasad R/O VillageBasudeopur, P.S.- Kalyanpur, District- Samastipu .. ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bijay Bhushan Prasad, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Dr. Ajeet Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL ORAL ORDER 24-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in Ujiyarpur P.S. Case No. 60 of 2023 registered for the offences under Section 392 of the IPC.

3. The allegation is that four persons robbed a bank of Rs. 4,37,020/-.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement. No TIP has been held. There is no recovery from the petitioner and the petitioner has been in custody since 15.05.2024.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. It has been urged that no Test Identification Parade was conducted and that there is no recovery from the petitioner. These submissions have been noted. That said, the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.33859 of 2026(3) dt.24-06-2026 2/2 stands implicated in the robbery of a bank involving Rs. 4,37,020/-, committed by a group of four persons. The name of the petitioner having transpired in the confessional statement of a co-accused is a circumstance that cannot be entirely brushed aside at this stage. The gravity of the offence, the organised manner of its commission, and the antecedents of the petitioner, when viewed together, do not commend the case for grant of bail.

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

8. However, the petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after six months.

9. It is made clear that any observation made herein is prima facie in nature and limited solely for the purpose of adjudication of the present bail application. Such observations shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and shall not influence the trial or any other proceedings in any manner.

(Ansul, J) Vikash/- U T