Patna High Court
Vijay Kumar @ FantusversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The Court held that, in the absence of substantive evidence connecting the petitioner to the alleged offences, anticipatory bail must be granted.
Summary
Vijay Kumar filed an anticipatory bail application in connection with a murder and arms case (PS Case No. 140 of 2025) alleging that he was falsely implicated. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was among those fleeing the scene after the killing of Kundan Kumar, based largely on the informant's testimony and the confessional statements of co‑accused Neeraj Kumar and Nikesh Kumar. The petitioner contended that there was no eyewitness evidence linking him, that the co‑accused had a personal vendetta, and that he had no prior criminal record. The State opposed bail, arguing that the petitioner had conspired and handed over firearms to the co‑accused. The High Court, noting the lack of material connecting the petitioner to the offence apart from the co‑accused’s confessions, granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC with conditions, emphasizing that the order would not prejudice the trial.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under Section 438 of the CrPC.
- Whether the material on record sufficiently links the petitioner to the offences alleged under the BNSS and the Arms Act.
- Whether the conditions imposed under Section 438(2) and inherent powers of the High Court are appropriate.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)(a), 26, 27, 35
- Bihar Narcotic Substances (BNSS) Act — s. 103(1), 482(2), 61(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) — s. 438, 482
- Indian Penal Code — s. 302, 34
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Section 438 CrPC
- Arms Act
- evidentiary insufficiency
- false implication
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65312 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-140 Year-2025 Thana- NAGARNAUSA District- Nalanda
======================================================
Vijay Kumar @ Fantus Son of Kaushlendra Prasad @ Kusendra Prasad
Resident of Village - Nagarnausa, P.S.- Nagar Nausa, District - Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Adv.
Mr.Atul Kumar Mehta, Adv.
Ms. Sushmita Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Munna Raj, Adv.
Ms. Minakshi Kumari, Adv.
Mr. Munish Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Shitanshu Shekhar, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Parmanand Prasad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
5 17-01-2026 Heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior counsel
for the petitioner assisted by Mr. Atul Kumar Mehta learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 as
well as learned A.P.P for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection
with Nagar Nausa P.S. Case No. 140 of 2025 dated 14.06.2025
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and
61(2) of the B.N.S. and Sections 25(1-B)(a), 26, 27 and 35 of the
Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the deceased, Kundan
Kumar is said to have received a phone call from the co-accused,
Shashi Bhushan asking him to come to his office. The informant
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65312 of 2025(5) dt.17-01-2026
2/5
further alleged that she received information that her husband had
been shot. She has alleged that when she rushed to the place of
occurrence along with her family members, she saw the named
accused persons including the petitioner, all armed with firearms
fleeing from the place of occurrence. It is further alleged that the
co-accused, Neeraj Kumar while fleeing was shouting that he had
killed the deceased and threatened of dire consequences.
4. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It has
further been submitted that so far as the present petitioner namely,
Vijay Kumar @ Fantus is concerned, it has been alleged that he
was seen by the informant as one of the persons fleeing from the
spot. However, the informant herself has claimed that the co-
accused, Neeraj Kumar was shouting while fleeing that he had
killed the deceased. It has further been submitted that admittedly,
the said Neeraj Kumar and Nikesh Kumar had previous enmity
with the deceased related to an old murder case and they had
threatened him two days ago prior to the present incident. Learned
Senior counsel has further pointed out that the deceased, Roushan
Kumar had in fact killed the brother of the co-accused, Nikesh
Kumar for which Nagar Nausa P.S. Case No. 145 of 2017 was
registered for the offences under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. It is thus contended that the present incident is a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65312 of 2025(5) dt.17-01-2026
3/5
retaliatory act committed by the said Neeraj Kumar along with
Nikesh Kumar. It has further been submitted that the petitioner is
the Director of Sant Mary School, Nagar Nausa and has been
maliciously implicated in the present case due to rivalry having no
connection whatsoever with the aforesaid incident and it is an
admitted case that no body had seen the occurrence. It has further
been submitted that the petitioner had initially stated that he has no
criminal antecedent, however, he subsequently came to know that
in connection with the present occurrence, one another case being
Nagar Nausa P.S. Case No. 201 of 2025 under the Arms Act was
registered against him, of which he was not aware at the relevant
time. It has further been submitted that while the charge-sheet has
been submitted against the other co-accused persons, the
investigation was kept pending as far as the present petitioner was
concerned along with two other co-accused persons. It has thus
been submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are based
on suspicion, there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the
petitioner had no criminal antecedent prior to the present
occurrence.
5. The learned A.P.P. for the State and learned counsel
for the O.P. No. 2 have vehemently opposed the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner and stated that the petitioner is a
named accused against whom serious allegations have been
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65312 of 2025(5) dt.17-01-2026
4/5
levelled of having connived with the other co-accused in
committing murder of the husband of the informant. It has further
been submitted that the petitioner along with two others had
handed over the firearms to the co-accused, Neeraj Kumar and
Nikesh Kumar, who have confessed their guilt in killing the
husband of the informant.
6. Considering the aforesaid submissions and taking
into account the fact that barring the confessional statements of the
co-accused, there is nothing on record to connect the petitioner
with the aforesaid incident, the petitioner, above named, is directed
to be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or
surrender before the Court below within a period of four weeks
from today, 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 concerned, Hilsa (Nalanda) in
connection with Nagarnausa P.S. Case No. 140 of 2025, subject to
the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure read with corresponding Section 482(2) of
BNSS as well as subject to the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors will be a close relative of the
petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present before
the concerned Court on each and every date of the trial and shall
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65312 of 2025(5) dt.17-01-2026
5/5
cooperate in the investigation.
(iii) In case of absence on two consecutive dates or in
violation of the terms of the bail, the bail bond of the petitioner
will be liable to be cancelled by the Court concerned.
(iv) The trial court shall verify the criminal antecedent
of the petitioner and in case, at any stage, it is found that the
petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedents, the trial court
shall take necessary steps for cancellation of bail bond of the
petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bond in terms of the
above mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in
the name of verification.
7. It is made clear that the observations, if any, made in
this order, shall be of no bearing during the trial.
8. The application stands allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Gautam/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.