Allowed¶18

Manish Kumar @ Chandan Kumar @ Sonu Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC4 Feb 2026CR. MISC./6289/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna High Court, Criminal Miscellaneous No.6289 of 2026, decided 04-02-2026 by Partha Sarthy, J. Regular bail; Rupaspur P.S. Case 146/2025, District Patna; Ss. 304(2) and 112(2) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023; chain snatching; FIR against unknown; name transpired in investigation; confessional statement before police; no recovery of incriminating article; custody since 19.5.2025 (eight months); chargesheet filed; bail bond Rs.10,000 with two sureties; ACJM-III Danapur; APP Rabindra Kumar; counsel Ramkishor Singh.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be enlarged on bail in Rupaspur P.S. Case no. 146 of 2025 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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Danapur. ¶18

Manish Kumar @ Chandan Kumar @ Sonu Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶18

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail in connection with Rupaspur P.S. Case no. 146 of 2025 registered under sections 304(2) and 112(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶12

Court's answer

Bail granted: the Court, having heard counsel and considering the allegations in the FIR, the material transpired in investigation as evident from the trial court's order, non-recovery of any incriminating article from the petitioner, his custody of eight months since 19.5.2025, and submission of the chargesheet, directed the petitioner to be enlarged on bail in Rupaspur P.S. Case no. 146 of 2025 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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Danapur.

¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted (Partha Sarthy, J., 04-02-2026). Petitioner sought regular bail in Rupaspur P.S. Case no. 146 of 2025 registered under Ss. 304(2) and 112(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, arising from the alleged snatching of the informant's golden chain by two motorcycle-borne accused outside a mandir. Counsel submitted that the FIR was against unknown persons, the petitioner's name surfaced in investigation, the case rests mainly on his confessional statement before police, and no incriminating article was recovered. The Court, considering the FIR allegations, the investigation material evident from the trial court's order, the non-recovery, custody of eight months since 19.5.2025, and submission of the chargesheet, enlarged the petitioner on bail on a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two like sureties to the satisfaction of the learned ACJM-III, Danapur.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6289 of 2026

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-146 Year-2025 Thana- RUPASPUR District- Patna

¶3

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

¶4

Manish Kumar @ Chandan Kumar @ Sonu Kumar Son of Surendra Ray Resident of Village- Bhagwatipur, Ward No. 2, P.O.- Neora, P.S.- Shahpur, District- Patna

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramkishor Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 04-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

The petitioner has preferred this application for grant of regular bail in connection with Rupaspur P.S. Case no. 146 of 2025 registered under sections 304(2) and 112(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶13

As per the prosecution case, the informant states that on coming out of the mandir , two accused persons on a motorcycle snatched her golden chain from around her neck and escaped.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was registered against unknown. The name of the petitioner transpired in course of investigation and the police is mainly basing their case on the confessional statement of the petitioner made before

¶15

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6289 of 2026(2) dt.04-02-2026 2/2

¶16

police. No incriminating article has been recovered from the petitioner’s possession and the cause of his false implication is his antecedents. The petitioner is in custody since 19.5.2025 and chargesheet has been submitted in the case.

¶17

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

¶18

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR, the material that has transpired in course of investigation as is evident from the order of the learned trial Court, no incriminating article having been recovered from the petitioner’s possession, the petitioner having remained in custody for eight months since 19.5.2025 and chargesheet having been submitted in the case, the Court directs the petitioner to be enlarged on bail in connection with Rupaspur P.S. Case no. 146 of 2025 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 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-III, Danapur.

¶19

(Partha Sarthy, J)

¶20

sauravkrsinha/-

¶21

U T

Manish Kumar @ Chandan Kumar @ Sonu Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar @ Chandan Kumar @ Sonu Kumar 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

Abha Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Azizur Rahman Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Amlesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Anish Raj @ Anish Thakur Vs The State of Bihar

Ankit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Pappu Kumar @ Pappu Yadav Vs The State of Bihar