Patna High Court
Vikash Kumar @ Mohit YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- REJECTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The bail application of the petitioner is dismissed.
Summary
Vikash Kumar, arrested in connection with offences under Sections 137(2), 140(3) and 61(2) of the B.N.S., applied for bail. The FIR was lodged 12 days after the alleged incident and initially did not name the petitioner; his name emerged later from a co‑accused’s confessional statement. The State and the informant opposed bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the organized‑crime charge and noting that a similarly situated co‑accused had previously been denied bail by a coordinate bench of the same court. The court considered the delay, the nature of the offences, and the precedent of the earlier bail denial. Consequently, the court rejected the bail application, finding no sufficient ground to grant liberty pending trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner given the seriousness of the offences under the B.N.S.
- Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the manner in which the petitioner was named affect the bail decision
- Whether the earlier denial of bail to a similarly situated co‑accused is binding precedent
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 103(1), 137(2), 140(3), 61(2)
Subjects
- bail
- organized crime
- delay in FIR
- co‑accused confession
- seriousness of offence
- B.N.S.
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64270 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-73 Year-2025 Thana- AIRPORT District- Patna
======================================================
Vikash Kumar @ Mohit Yadav Son of Manoj Yadav Resident of Village-
Meyar, P.S.- Noorsarai, District- Nalanda
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashikant, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Aaysh Abhishek, Advocate
: Ms. Namrata Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
4 16-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned
Senior counsel for the informant and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for
the offence punishable under Sections 137(2), 140(3) and 61(2)
of the B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution case, Laxman Sadhu
Sinde arrived at Patna Airport on 11.04.2025 and informed his
wife that Shivraj Sagi would receive him and take him to
Jharkhand. Later that night, he became unreachable and an
unknown person briefly answered his phone stating he was in
the bathroom, after which all contact was lost.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64270 of 2025(4) dt.16-02-2026
2/3
the First Information Report was lodged after delay of 12 days
and yet the petitioner has not been named in the same. The
First Information Report is not based on the statement of any
eye-witness and the name of the petitioner has transpired
during the course of investigation in the confessional statement
of co-accused, Ranjeet Patel, before the police. It has been
further submitted that one similarly situated co-accused person,
namely Sachin Ranjan has been granted bail by the Court
below itself (Annexure-P/2). The petitioner is in custody since
14.04.2025 and charge-sheet has been submitted.
5. Learned APP for the State as well as learned
Senior counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the
grant of bail. It has been submitted on behalf of the informant
that the charge-sheet was subsequently submitted under Section
103(1) and other Sections of the B.N.S. and the present act is
that of organized crime and has further pointed out that the case
of one similarly situated co-accused person, namely Kundan
Kumar has also been rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 26.11.2025 passed in Cr. Misc.
No.56519 of 2025 and the considerations were absolutely
similar to the present accused.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64270 of 2025(4) dt.16-02-2026
3/3
circumstances and considering the seriousness of the
accusations, coupled with the fact that the bail application of
similarly situated co-accused person has already been rejected
by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, this Court is not inclined
to grant the privilege of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the
prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected in connection
with Hawai Adda P.S. No.73 of 2025.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
U T
Checking your session…