Ram Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Ram Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Bail granted: petitioner enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (East), Muzaffarpur, in connection with Gaighat P.S. Case No. 107 of 2026.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner (Ram Kumar) should be enlarged on bail in connection with Gaighat P.S. Case No. 107 of 2026, registered for offences punishable under Sections 111(2), 303(2), 313, 317(4), 317(5), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.

Court's answer

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court was inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail; the petitioner was directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (East), Muzaffarpur, in connection with Gaighat P.S. Case No. 107 of 2026.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted (oral order, Ashok Kumar Pandey, J, Patna High Court, 24-06-2026) to Ram Kumar in Gaighat P.S. Case No. 107 of 2026 (District Muzaffarpur), registered under Sections 111(2), 303(2), 313, 317(4), 317(5), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023, on allegations that the petitioner concealed stolen bikes, that a stolen bike was recovered from the door of his house, and that he named Zahid and Faizal as kingpins of the bike theft racket. Defence pointed to no recovery from person or premises, police personnel as seizure-list witnesses, alleged non-compliance with Section 105 of the BNSS during seizure, absence of criminal antecedent, and judicial custody since 15.04.2026; the APP opposed bail. The Court enlarged the petitioner on bail on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (East), Muzaffarpur.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40310 of 2026

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-107 Year-2026 Thana- GAIGHAT District- Muzaffarpur

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

Ram Kumar S/o Ram Shukul Mahto Resident of Village- Kamrathu, P.S.Gaighat, District- Muzaffarpur

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Dr. Bipin Chandra, Advocate. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Nagendra Prasad, APP ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER

2 24-06-2026

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

APP for the State.

The petitioner has prayed for bail in connection with Gaighat P.S. Case No. 107 of 2026 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 111(2), 303(2), 313, 317(4), 317(5), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the police received information that the petitioner had concealed stolen bikes and on the said information, the police conducted a search and recovered a stolen bike from the door of the petitioner's house. It is further alleged that, on being asked, the petitioner disclosed that Zahid and Faizal were the kingpins of the bike theft racket.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40310 of 2026(2) dt.24-06-2026 2/2

petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submits that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner neither from his premises. The witnesses of the seizure list are police personnel and the police has not complied with Section 105 of the BNSS while making the seizure. Moreover, a statement has been made in para 3 of the petition that petitioner has no criminal antecedent and he is languishing in judicial custody since 15.04.2026.

The application for bail is opposed by learned APP for the State.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. ten thousand only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1^st Class, (East), Muzaffarpur in connection with Gaighat P.S. Case No. 107 of 2026.

(Ashok Kumar Pandey, J)

Sudhanshu/-

U T