Patna High Court
Sarvesh Kumar @ Meghu KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The court held that bail could not be granted at this stage and dismissed the application.
Summary
Sarvesh Kumar was arrested for allegedly entering a wedding reception with a pistol, demanding a song, and later setting the house on fire, causing loss of over one lakh rupees. He filed a regular bail application under several sections of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, asserting that he was falsely implicated and that no incriminating article was recovered. The State opposed, arguing that the FIR contains direct allegations and that witnesses support the charge of arson. After hearing both sides, the court considered the seriousness of the offences and the material gathered during investigation. The court rejected the bail application, granting the petitioner liberty to renew the prayer after six months.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 given the nature of the alleged offences
- Whether the allegations in the FIR and corroborating witness statements justify denial of bail
- Whether the petitioner poses a risk to public order or is likely to tamper with evidence
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 126(2), 190, 191(2), 324(4), 325, 326(g), 351(2), 352, 74
Subjects
- regular bail
- arson
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- false implication
- criminal procedure
- sections 191(2)
- sections 190
- sections 126(2)
- sections 115(2)
- sections 325
- sections 326(g)
- sections 324(4)
- sections 74
- sections 352
- sections 351(2)
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76293 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-235 Year-2025 Thana- VAISHALI District- Vaishali
======================================================
Sarvesh Kumar @ Meghu Kumar S/O Jagdish Bhagat R/O village - Karneji,
P.S. - Belsur, District – Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Hemant Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Binod Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL ORDER
3 21-01-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has preferred this application for
grant of regular bail in connection with Vaishali P.S. Case no.235
of 2025, registered under sections 191(2), 190, 126(2), 115(2),
325, 326(g), 324(4), 74, 352 and 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant states that
the petitioner along with one another entered the place where the
function of wedding reception of his nephew was taking place
and started insisting that they play a song of his choice. They
were wielding pistol. It is further stated that on protest, they went
away, however they lighted up the house by sprinkling petrol,
thus causing loss of over a lakh rupees.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. No such
occurrence as alleged in the FIR has taken place. No
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76293 of 2025(3) dt.21-01-2026
2/2
incriminating article has been recovered from the petitioner. The
informant is not an eye witness to the occurrence and the
allegations are general and omnibus in nature. The petitioner is in
custody since 2.6.2025 and charge-sheet has been submitted in
the case. Further referring to the statement made in paragraph
nos. 12 and 13 of the petition, learned counsel submits that the
cause of false implication is the earlier dispute between the
parties as described therein.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned APP
for the State, who submits that there is direct allegation against
the petitioner in the FIR and the allegation of the petitioner
having set the house on fire is supported by the witnesses in
course of investigation.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner in
the FIR together with the material that has transpired in course of
investigation, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner
on bail and the application is rejected.
7. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to renew his
prayer for bail after six months.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
Shiv/-
U T
Checking your session…