Bail application in a Kursela PS theft case under Sections 379 and 461 IPC; petitioner not named in FIR and named only on a co-accused's confessional statement. Considering period of judicial custody, the High Court enlarged him on bail on conditions including presence at trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23410 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-179 Year-2023 Thana- KURSAILA District- Katihar
======================================================
Munil Kumar @ Munil Kumar Mahto @ Munil Mahto Son of Bhola Mahto Resident of Village- Maliniya, P.S.- Kursela, District- Katihar
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Bimal Kumar For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Lalan Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL ORDER
2 29-04-2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned APP for the State.
grant of regular bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 461 of the Indian Penal Code but chargesheet has been submitted u/s 379, 461, 411/34 of
the Indian Penal Code.
various articles along with a cash amount of ₹5,000 (Rupees Five Thousand).
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23410 of 2025(2) dt.29-04-2025 2/3
petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. Neither the petitioner is named in F.I.R. nor anything incriminating has been recovered from his possession. The name of petitioner sprang up in this case on the basis of confessional statement of coaccused Jichhwa. Moreover, the petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 04.10.2023. However, in Impugned Order, it is wrongly mentioned as 04.10.2024.
satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23410 of 2025(2) dt.29-04-2025 3/3
Katihar with following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors should be close relative of the
petitioner.
(ii) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be present on each and every fixed date and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bonds may be cancelled by the learned trial Court.
(iii) if the petitioner tampers with the evidence or threatens the witness, in that case, the prosecution will be at
liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
(S. B. Pd. Singh, J)
Nirajkrs/-
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner in custody since 04.10.2023 should be enlarged on bail in a theft case where he was not named in the FIR.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Munil Kumar @ Munil Kumar Mahto @ Munil Mahto
The State of Bihar
S. B. Pd. Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
