Patna High Court
Vikas Kumar @ Vikas YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANDEEP KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that regular bail could not be granted to the petitioner at this stage.
Summary
The petitioner, Vikas Kumar, was charged under IPC sections 364, 302/34 and Section 27 of the Arms Act for allegedly assaulting and causing the death of the deceased. He had been in custody since 24 December 2025 and applied for regular bail, claiming innocence, false implication, and that the post‑mortem injuries did not support the prosecution’s version. The State and the informant opposed bail, arguing that the petitioner had been absconding and that the seriousness of the offences warranted continued detention. The Court examined the gravity of the charges, the length of custody, and the allegation of absconding, and concluded that bail could not be granted at this stage. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed, with the petitioner permitted to file a fresh bail petition after the charge sheet is framed.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail can be granted to an accused of murder and related offences when he has been in custody for an extended period and is alleged to have absconded
- Whether the post‑mortem findings undermine the prosecution’s case sufficiently to justify bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 27
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34, 364
Subjects
- regular bail
- murder
- IPC 302
- IPC 364
- Arms Act 27
- absconding
- custody
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19980 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-216 Year-2020 Thana- MANJHAGARH District- Gopalganj
======================================================
Vikas Kumar @ Vikas Yadav S/O Sanjay Yadav Resident of Village-
Lahladpur, P.S- Manjhagarh, District- Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kant, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP
Mr. Amitesh Kumar
For the Informant : Mr. Adesh Raj Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 30-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the
learned APP for the State, and the learned counsel for the
informant.
2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with
Manjhagarh P.S. Case No. 216 of 2020 registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 364, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code
and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is
alleged to have assaulted the deceased, causing grievous injuries
as a result of which the deceased died. The petitioner is named
as one of the assailants in the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19980 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026
2/2
custody since 24.12.2025. It is also argued that the injuries
mentioned in the post-mortem report do not support the version
of the prosecution as alleged in the FIR. It is further contended
that similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted
bail.
5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State as
well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently
opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that in a case of 2020
in which the petitioner is named, he is in custody since
24.12.2025 which indicates that he is an absconder.
6. Having considered the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the
allegations and the fact that the petitioner remained absconding
for a considerable period, I am not inclined to grant regular bail
to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the application for bail stands
dismissed for the present. The petitioner may renew his prayer
for bail after framing of charge.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
Checking your session…