Allowed¶20

Pushkar Pandey v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC10 Jun 2026CR. MISC./28645/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pushkar Pandey v. The State of Bihar; Patna High Court; CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 28645 of 2026; decided 10-06-2026 by Soni Shrivastava, J.; Section 392 IPC; Mashrakh P.S. Case No. 605 of 2020, District Saran; regular bail; implication based on confessional statement of co-accused before police with no evidentiary value; TIP failure; charge-sheet filed; custody since 16.02.2026; bail bond Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties; conditions as to relative bailor and appearance.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the petitioner on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each, subject to conditions that one bailor be a close relative (preferably the uncle who affidavited the petition) and that the petitioner appear on every date fixed, failing which the court below may cancel his bail bonds. ¶20

Pushkar Pandey Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, accused of an offence punishable under Section 392 IPC in Mashrakh P.S. Case No. 605 of 2020, should be enlarged on bail. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

Petitioner enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below, in connection with Mashrakh P.S. Case No. 605 of 2020.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Bail granted because the implication of the petitioner is based only on the confessional statement of a co-accused before the police, which has no evidentiary value, coupled with the fact that the charge-sheet has already been submitted.

¶18

Key takeaways

Bail made subject to the condition that one of the bailors would be a close relative, preferably the uncle of the petitioner who has affidavited the petition.ratio¶21
Bail made subject to the condition that the petitioner appear on each and every date fixed; on absence on even a single date without substantial and satisfactory reason, the learned court below is at liberty to cancel his bail bonds.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted under Section 392 IPC (Mashrakh P.S. Case No. 605 of 2020) — FIR lodged against unknown persons; petitioner implicated only on confessional statement of co-accused Ranjeet Kumar Singh before the police, having no evidentiary value — co-accused already granted anticipatory bail by coordinate Bench — no recovery from petitioner; informant failed to identify him in TIP — petitioner in custody since 16.02.2026 and charge-sheet submitted — bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each; conditions: one bailor to be a close relative (preferably the uncle who affidavited the petition) and appearance on every date, failing which bail bonds may be cancelled.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28645 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-605 Year-2020 Thana- MASHRAK District- Saran

¶3

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

¶4

Pushkar Pandey son of Shashi Shekhar Pandey Resident of Village -Basahi PS- Janta Bazar Dist -Saran at Chapra

¶5

... ... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Udai Shankar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Bhanu Pratap Singh ======================================================

¶7

CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER

¶8

3 10-06-2026

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶10

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

¶11

The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the

¶12

offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

Petitioner along with other accused persons are said to have snatched away the motorcycle of the informant on the point of pistol.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the First Information Report was lodged against unknown and the name of the petitioner transpired during the course of investigation on the basis of confessional statement of coaccused Ranjeet Kumar Singh made in another case. However, the said co-accused Ranjeet Kumar Singh was granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 70903 of 2024. It is

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28645 of 2026(3) dt.10-06-2026 2/3

¶16

further submitted that no recovery was made from the possession of the petitioner or from his house. As a matter of fact, the petitioner was also put on TIP but the informant failed to identify him which fact has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has been made an accused in this case only on account of his criminal antecedents but the fact remains that although he was behind bars from 12.01.2021 to 14.01.2025 in other cases but during the said period, the police neither made any enquiry about the petitioner nor ever visited his house during the course of investigation of the present case, as stated in para-13 of the petition. Petitioner is now in custody since 16.02.2026 and charge-sheet has already been submitted.

¶17

Learned APP for the State has opposed the application for bail on the ground of antecedents of the petitioner. However, it has been submitted that he has been granted bail in all the other cases.

¶18

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and also considering the fact that the implication of the petitioner is based only on confessional statement of the coaccused before the police having no evidentiary value, coupled with the fact that the charge-sheet has already been submitted,

¶19

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28645 of 2026(3) dt.10-06-2026 3/3

¶20

let the above named petitioner, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned court below where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Mashrakh P.S. Case No. 605 of 2020, subject to the conditions that:

¶21

(I) One of the bailors would be the close relative preferably the uncle of the petitioner who has affidavited the present petition.

¶22

(II) The petitioner would appear on each and every date fixed in the case and if the petitioner does not appear on even a single date without any substantial and satisfactory reason, the learned court below would be at liberty to cancel his bail bonds.

¶23

(Soni Shrivastava, J)

¶24

devendra/-

¶25

U T

Pushkar Pandey v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushkar Pandey 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Singh @ Dinesh Sah @ Dinesh Vs The State of Bihar

Tulsi Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Vikesh Pandey Vs The State of Bihar

Jitan Rai @ Jitan Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Ram Vs The State of Bihar

Prem Raj Sharma Vs The State of Bihar