Dismissed¶¶23

Paro Mandal @ Arun Mandal v. The State of Bihar

Criminal Miscellaneous (regular bail) – Sections 379 and 411, Indian Penal Code

Patna HC12 May 2026CR. MISC./23235/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, CR. MISC. No.23235 of 2026, decided 12-05-2026, Satyavrat Verma, J. — regular bail application rejected under Sections 379/411 IPC; FIR (Dhoraiya P.S. Case No.345 of 2022, Banka) against unknown persons, name transpired via co-accused's confessional statement; petitioner with five-case antecedents, in custody since 08.01.2026; liberty to renew bail prayer after framing of charge.

What did the court decide?

No bail relief granted; petitioner permitted to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. ¶¶23

Paro Mandal @ Arun Mandal Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23235 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-345 Year-2022 Thana- DHORAIYA District- Banka

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Paro Mandal @ Arun Mandal S/o Late Kailash Mandal Resident of VillageBabupur, P.S.- Sabour, District- Bhagalpur (Bihar)

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Bihar Bihar

¶8

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance :

¶10

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pratyush Pratap Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Amitesh Kumar ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶12

2 12-05-2026

¶13

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶14

APP for the State.

¶15

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.

¶16

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.

¶17

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

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23235 of 2026(2) dt.12-05-2026 2/2

¶19

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.

¶20

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.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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

¶24

(Satyavrat Verma, J)

¶25

amit/-

¶26

U T

Paro Mandal @ Arun Mandal v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paro Mandal @ Arun Mandal v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gorelal Kumar @ Gorelal @ Gorelal Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Amit Kumar @ Avinash Kumar Pandit Vs The State of Bihar

Anuj Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Vikash Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Nitish Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Rajan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar