Dismissed

Saurav Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC17 Aug 2026CR. MISC./41457/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Justice Harish Kumar dismissed the petitioner's petition for anticipatory bail in a theft case under the BNS. The Court denied bail due to recovery of funds and coupled it with a direction to approach the lower court within four weeks for regular bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for anticipatory bail rejected; petitioner directed to surrender for regular bail within four weeks.

Saurav Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Anticipatory Bail | Patna HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.41457 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-85 Year-2026 Thana- LAHERIMUHALLA District- Nalanda

¶3

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

¶4

Saurav Kumar S/o Randhir Kumar R/o Village- Baignabad, P.S- Bihar, DistNalanda.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajiv Nayan, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶11

3 17-08-2026

¶12

Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned

¶13

APP for the State.

¶14

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Laheri P.S. Case No.85 of 2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 305(a), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5) and 331(4) of the BNS.

¶15

The prosecution alleges that some unknown thieves stealthily entered the house of the informant and, after breaking open the locker, took away valuable jewellery worth approximately Rs. 73 lakhs.

¶16

Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the FIR was initially instituted against unknown thieves. However, subsequently, during the course of investigation, the police apprehended one Aditya Kumar @ Manish Kumar @

¶17

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41457 of 2026(3) dt.17-08-2026 2/3

¶18

Chikara, who allegedly confessed his involvement in the occurrence and stated that he had sold the stolen jewellery to different jewellery shops. He further disclosed that, on 03.08.2026, he had handed over an amount of Rs. 3 lakhs to the present petitioner. On the basis of the aforesaid confessional statement of the co-accused, the police raided the house of the petitioner and allegedly recovered Rs. 3 lakhs therefrom. Referring to the confessional statement, learned Advocate contended that, even if the said statement is taken at its face value, there is no specific allegation that the petitioner was a member of, or associated with, the group of persons involved in the alleged theft. It has also not been disclosed that the amount allegedly handed over to the petitioner represented any part of the proceeds of the crime or was otherwise connected with the stolen property. Moreover, the petitioner is a student having clean antecedent.

¶19

On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and submitted that the recovery of Rs. 3 lakhs from the house of the petitioner, coupled with the statement of the co-accused, prima facie suggests the petitioner's complicity in the alleged offence. It is further submitted that some of the co-accused persons have

¶20

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.41457 of 2026(3) dt.17-08-2026 3/3

¶21

already been granted the privilege of regular bail.

¶22

Having considered the submissions advanced by

¶23

learned Advocates for the respective parties and taking into consideration the materials available on record, particularly the recovery of Rs. 3 lakhs from the house of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

¶24

However, in the event the petitioner surrenders before the learned court below, preferably within a period of four weeks from today, and seeks regular bail, his prayer for bail shall be considered and disposed of on its own merits, in accordance with law, without being prejudiced in any manner by the present order. While considering such prayer, the learned court below shall also take into consideration the fact that some of the co-accused persons have already been extended the privilege of regular bail.

¶25

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶26

rohit/-

Saurav Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurav Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bir Sundar Vs The State of Bihar

Sarvendra Tiwari Vs The State of Bihar

Maharana Pratap Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Jairam Singh @ Jayram Singh @ Sunny Vs The State of Bihar

Ashok Yadav @ Kailu Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Md. Alamgir Vs The State of Bihar