Patna High Court
CR. MISC./57454/2026 of Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Pandey Vs The State of Bihar on 19 August 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57454 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-993 Year-2025 Thana- BHABHUA District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== 1. Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Pandey, aged 26 years, Male, Son of Sadanand Pandey, Resident of
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.57454 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-993 Year-2025 Thana- BHABHUA District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
1.
Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Pandey, aged 26 years, Male, Son of Sadanand Pandey, Resident of Village- Silri (Near Hanuman Mandir), P.S.- Bhabua, District- Kaimur
2.
Chandra Shekhar Singh, aged 44 years, Male, Son of Bhanu Pratap Singh, Resident of Village- Ameth, P.S.- Mohania, District- Kaimur.
3.
Chandrabali Kumar, aged 24 years, Male, Son of Ram Lakhan Prasad, Resident of Village- Bahuwan, P.S.- Souhan, District- Kaimur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s
:
Mr. Bachan Jee Ojha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh.1, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
19-08-2026 Heard Mr. Bachan Jee Ojha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh.1, learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in connection with Bhabhua (Kaimur) P.S. Case No. 993 of 2025, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 317 of the BNS and Section 140 of the Electricity Act, 2003.
3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the petitioners, in a planned manner, had allegedly tried to commit theft of Hydra, Pole and a Trolley. The informant, who is Assistant Project Manager in Transformer Pvt. Ltd. Company working under Mukhyamantri Krishi Vidyut Sambandh Yojna- Phase-II, had immediately informed the police but before the police could reach the place of occurrence, the petitioners had fled away and the police prepared the seizure list and lodged the FIR, in which, the petitioners are seeking bail.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. The petitioners were engaged by the informant for carrying the electricity poles for its erection at the site and in the meanwhile, due to some differences, on the basis of false allegation, the petitioners have been roped in the present case. The petitioner no. 1 is the owner of Tractor bearing Registration No. BR-45G-1674, petitioner no. 2 is the owner of Tractor bearing Registration No. BR-45A- 1570 and petitioner no. 3 is driver of petitioner no. 2. Petitioner no. 1 has one criminal antecedent and petitioners no. 2 and 3 have clean antecedent. On these grounds, the petitioners seek to be released on pre-arrest bail.
5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.
6. Having heard the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the FIR, I find that pursuant to the information given by the informant to the police, the accused persons fled away from the spot. Two tractors bearing Registration No. BR-45G-1674 and BR-45A-1570 belonging to petitioners no. 1 and 2 were seized from the spot and seizure list was prepared. Petitioners have claimed that they were engaged by the informant for loading and transporting the poles at the site and due to some differences, the informant, on the basis of false accusation, has roped the petitioners in the present case, however, considering the fact that petitioner no. 1 has one criminal antecedent and his complicity in the alleged offence cannot be denied, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner no. 1, namely, Rahul Kumar @ Rahul Pandey, on pre-arrest bail.
7. So far as, petitioners no. 2 and 3 are concerned, considering that they have clean antecedent and they were not present at the place of occurrence, they are directed to be released on pre-arrest bail, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the learned District Court within a period of four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District Court where the case is pending, in connection with Bhabhua
(Kaimur) P.S. Case No. 993 of 2025, subject to the condition as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
8. The learned District Court is directed to verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners no. 2 and 3 as stated in paragraph no. 3 of the bail application. If any other case is pending against the petitioners no. 2 and 3 as what has been stated in paragraph no. 3, this order will lose its force automatically.
9. Accordingly, the present bail application stands disposed of.
Niraj/- (Purnendu Singh, J) U T