Patna High Court
Vikash KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
Holding
The petitioner is entitled to bail on the basis of judicial parity with the co‑accused.
Summary
Vikash Kumar petitioned for bail in a criminal case (PS Case No.253 of 2024) after an earlier bail application was rejected. He argued that a co-accused, Muslim Alam, was later granted bail by a different bench of the same court, creating a case of judicial parity. The State could not refute these factual submissions. The court noted the delay in trial and investigation and, relying on the principle of equal treatment, ordered that the petitioner be released on bail. Bail was set at Rs.10,000 with two sureties, subject to conditions under Section 437(3) of the CrPC and Section 480(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, including cooperation with the trial and non‑tampering with evidence.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail on the ground of parity with a similarly situated co‑accused who was later granted bail
- Whether the delay in trial and investigation justifies granting bail
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 480(3)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 437(3)
Subjects
- bail
- judicial parity
- delay in trial
- co-accused
- CrPC
- BNSS
- conditions of bail
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14606 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-253 Year-2024 Thana- SANGRAMPUR District- East
Champaran
======================================================
Vikash Kumar, S/o Om Prakash Sharma @ Om Prakash Tiwari, R/o Village -
Mananpur, P.S - Kalyanpur, District - East Champaran
... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
2 25-02-2026 This is the second successive bail petition of the
petitioner.
2. It is pointed out by learned counsel appearing for
petitioner that on earlier occasion, the prayer for bail of
petitioner was rejected through Cr. Misc. No.13579 of 2025
dated 21.08.2025 considering the aspect that the bail of
similarly situated co-accused persons namely, Jokhu Prasad
and Muslim Alam was rejected by different co-ordinate Bench
of this Court.
3. In aforesaid connection, it is submitted that
considering the delay in trial and investigation, upon second
consideration, the prayer of bail of co-accused Muslim Alam
was allowed through Cr. Misc. No.80189 of 2025 dated
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14606 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
2/3
30.01.2026 by one of the learned co-ordinate Bench of this
Court and, therefore, as a matter of judicial parity, this
petitioner also deserves bail.
4. Learned APP could not dispute the aforesaid
factual submissions.
5. In view of aforesaid, as similarly situated co-
accused namely, Muslim Alam, upon second consideration,
has already granted bail by one of the learned co-ordinate
Bench of this Court through Cr. Misc. No.80189 of 2025
dated 30.01.2026, accordingly, the petitioner, above-named,
is directed to be released on bail furnishing bail bond of
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the
like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial
Magistrate-1st Class, East Champaran, Motihari in connection
with Sangrampur P.S. Case No.253 of 2024, subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 437(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (for short ‘CrPC’)/under Section 480(3) of
the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘BNSS’) and
with further conditions:-
(1) That petitioner shall co-operate in the
trial and shall be properly represented on each and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14606 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026
3/3
every date fixed by the trial court and shall remain
physically present as directed by the trial court
and on his absence on two consecutive dates
without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be
cancelled by the trial court.
(2) That if the petitioner tampers with the
evidence or the witness then the prosecution will
be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.
(3) That one of the bailors shall be a close
relative of the petitioner, who has sworn affidavit
in this miscellaneous petition.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.)
Sanjeet/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.