Rajeev Kumar Jha @ Rajeev Jha Vs The State of Bihar

The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 01.03.2026 in connection with Hasanpur P.S. Case No. 21 of 2026, G.R. No. 154 of 2026, F.I.R. dated 02.02.2026 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 334(1), 303(2) of BNS.

¶17

The FIR of the occurrence of theft is against

¶18

unknown.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the initially the petitioner was not named in the FIR. The name of the petitioner has been transpired during investigation on the basis of the self-confessional statement of the petitioner.

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32228 of 2026(2) dt.12-05-2026 2/3

¶21

Thereafter, some article has been recovered from the house of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till date the said article has not been put on TIP, even the petitioner has not been put on TIP and the petitioner is in custody since 01.03.2026.

¶22

Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner carries two more cases other than the present one but fairly submits that the petitioner is on bail in both the cases, as mentioned in para-3 of the bail petition.

¶23

Considering the aforesaid facts, petitioner is not named in the FIR, the name of the petitioner has been transpired during investigation on the basis of the self-confessional statement of the petitioner and till date no TIP has been conducted by the prosecution, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M. IInd, Rosera, (Samastipur) in connection with Hasanpur P.S. Case No. 21 of 2026, G.R. No. 154 of 2026, with the following conditions:-

¶24

(I) Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the Court

¶25

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32228 of 2026(2) dt.12-05-2026 3/3

¶26

and shall remain physically present as directed by the Court and on his/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below.

¶27

(II) If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

¶28

(III) And, further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

¶29

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)

¶30

Nitesh/-

¶31

U T

Rajeev Kumar Jha @ Rajeev Jha v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Kumar Jha @ Rajeev Jha 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

Lalbabu Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Guddu Sahni Vs The State of Bihar

Vivek Kumar @ Vivek Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Aukar Alam Vs The State of Bihar

Shankar Jha Vs The State of Bihar

Ramu Gupta Vs The State of Bihar