Patna High Court
Vikky Kumar @ Vikash Kumar @ Vikash MandalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- AJIT KUMAR
Holding
The court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the stipulated conditions.
Summary
The petitioner, Vicky Kumar, was named in FIR No.110 of 2025 for offences under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, arising from an alleged assault, robbery and intimidation at a cattle shed. Both the informant and the accused sustained injuries, but the injuries were described as simple and the petitioner has a clean antecedent. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail, arguing that a case and counter‑case exists and that co‑accused have already been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate bench. The State opposed the bail on the ground of the seriousness of the offences. Considering the facts, the court granted anticipatory bail subject to conditions under Section 438(2) of the CrPC and Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 482 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in view of the alleged offences and the existence of a case and counter‑case.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 109, 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 74
- Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- assault
- robbery
- case and counter‑case
- clean antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42505 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-110 Year-2025 Thana- Amhara District- Lakhisarai
======================================================
Vikky Kumar @ Vikash Kumar @ Vikash Mandal S/O Ashish Mandal @
Ramashish Mandal R/O Village- Ramnnar, PS- Amahara, Distt-Lakhisarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rabi Bhushan, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Anil Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
2 01-07-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Amahara P.S. Case No. 110 of 2025, F.I.R dated
21.10.2025 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 126 (2), 115 (2), 109, 74, 303 (2), 352, 351 (2) 3 (5) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, on 18.10.2025
around 02:00 to 03:00 P.M., the informant was sitting in her
cattle shed when three accused persons, namely Vicky Kumar,
Sunny Kumar and Roshan Kumar, allegedly arrived on a
motorcycle in an intoxicated condition and started abusing her
son. Upon protest, they allegedly assaulted him. It is alleged that
Vicky Kumar struck the informant’s husband, Varun Yadav, on
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42505 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
2/4
the forehead with an iron rod, causing a serious head injury, and
all the accused further assaulted him. The informant further
alleged that when she intervened, the accused misbehaved with
her, pushed her to the ground, snatched her gold chain and took
Rs. 5,000/- from her husband’s pocket. On raising alarm, the
accused allegedly fled after extending threats. It is further
alleged that on the same day at about 8:00 P.M., the said
accused persons along with 10–15 unknown persons, armed
with lathis and other weapons, came to the informant’s cattle
shed, searched for her husband and son, abused and threatened
the informant, and directed her to remove the cattle shed and
leave the locality.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there
is a case and counter-case for the allegations leveled against the
petitioner in the F.I.R. Both sides are said to have been sustained
injuries. There is nothing specific against this petitioner, while
other co-accused persons, namely Raushan Kumar and Sanni
Kumar, for similar allegations, have been allowed anticipatory
bail by a co-ordinate Bench in CWJC No. 39657 of 2026. It is
submitted that the injuries sustained have been found to be
simple in nature. The petitioner has got clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42505 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
3/4
anticipatory bail in respect of this petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid fact that there is a case
and counter-case and both sides having sustained injuries, which
is said to have been simple in nature and the petitioner having
clean antecedent, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of
his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M.-III, Lakhisarai in connection
with the aforesaid P.S. Case, subject to the conditions as laid
down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure /
Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and
with other following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the
family member/relative/known of the
petitioner(s) who shall provide official
document/personal affidavit to show his/her
bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear
on each and every date before the Trial
Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason
will entail cancellation of his/her/their bail
bond by the Trial Court itself;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42505 of 2026(2) dt.01-07-2026
4/4
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no
way try to induce or promise or threat the
witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to
take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist
from committing any criminal offence again,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to
take steps for cancellation of their bail
bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
surya/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.