Patna High Court
Bipin Kumar @ Vipin KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioner, holding that the case rests only on suspicion and the procedural deficiencies warrant release on bond.
Summary
The petitioner, Bipin Kumar, a 19‑year‑old with no prior criminal record, was arrested in connection with offences under Sections 109, 126(2), 115(2), 117(2), 324(4), 3(5) of the B.N.S., later amended to include Section 103. After the charge‑sheet was framed on 23‑02‑2026, he filed a renewed bail application, contending that the FIR was lodged four days after the alleged incident and that there were no eye‑witnesses, with the panchnama signed only by the deceased’s family and not naming any accused. The State’s Additional Public Prosecutor did not dispute the delay or the absence of eyewitnesses but opposed bail. The Court noted the delay, lack of direct evidence, and the petitioner’s youth and clean record, concluding that the case rested largely on suspicion. Accordingly, the Court ordered bail on a bond of Rs 10,000 with two sureties, imposing conditions of family surety, regular court appearances, and cancellation on two consecutive non‑appearances.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner given the delay in filing the FIR, absence of eye‑witnesses, and the nature of the offences under the B.N.S.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103, 109, 115(2), 117(2), 126(2), 324(4), 3(5)
Subjects
- bail
- delay in FIR
- lack of eyewitness
- suspicion
- B.N.S. sections
- minor accused
- surety conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18664 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-260 Year-2025 Thana- AKHODHIGOLA District- Rohtas
======================================================
Bipin Kumar @ Vipin Kumar S/O Vinay Singh @ Vinay Kumar Singh R/O
Village- Karkatpur, P.S- Akorhigola, District- Rohtas.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rakesh Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Ram Priya Sharan Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
3 17-04-2026 Heard Mr. Krishna Pd. Singh, learned senior counsel
for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Rakesh Singh and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the
offence punishable under Sections 109, 126(2), 115(2), 117(2),
324(4), 3(5) of the B.N.S. and later on Section 103 of the B.N.S.
has been added.
3. The present application has been filed renewing the
prayer for bail in view of the liberty granted to the petitioner
vide order dated 16.02.2026 passed by this Court to approach
the Court after framing of charge.
4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has
pointed out that the charges were framed on 23.02.2026
(Annexure-5) as such, the prayer for bail has been renewed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18664 of 2026(3) dt.17-04-2026
2/3
Learned senior counsel further submits that there is a virtually
no eye witness to the present incident and perusal of the First
Information Report would show that the informant also is not an
eye witness. The Panchnama which was prepared at the Trauma
Center and Super-specialty Hospital, Varanasi has been pointed
out before this Court to contend that the same bears the
signature of the family members of the deceased and yet no
names of any accused has been whispered in the said
Panchnama. It has further been submitted that while the
occurrence is said to have taken place 23.06.2025 the FIR was
lodged on 27.06.2025 without tendering any explanation for
such delay. Further, the petitioner is in custody since 28.06.2025
with no criminal antecedent and he is a young boy aged about
19 years.
5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the
application for bail. However, he does not controvert the fact
that the Panchnama which forms a part of the case diary does
not indicate the names of the accused persons and that the FIR
has also been lodged after delay.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances and considering the factum of delay coupled with
the fact that there appears to be no eye witness to occurrence and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18664 of 2026(3) dt.17-04-2026
3/3
the entire case rests only on suspicion, let the above named
petitioner, be enlarged on bail 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 court below where
the case is pending/successor court in connection with
Akorhigola P.S. Case No. 260 of 2025, subject to the conditions
that:
(I) One of the bailors would be the family member
or relative.
(II) The petitioner would appear physically on
each and every date in the learned court below and would
cooperate in the conclusion of trial and if the petitioner does not
appear on two consecutive dates without any substantial and
satisfactory reason, the learned court below would be at liberty
to cancel his bail bonds.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
devendra/-
U T
Checking your session…