Patna High Court
Vishal Kumar Jha @ Vishal Jha @ RajaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SONI SHRIVASTAVA
Holding
The Court granted bail to the petitioner, directing release on bond with conditions.
Summary
Vishal Kumar Jha applied for bail in a case (Danapur P.S. Case No. 751 of 2024) where he was implicated under sections 103, 111(2), 61(2), 3(5) of the BNS and section 27 of the Arms Act for the alleged shooting of an informant's son. The FIR named unknown miscreants, and the investigation later identified three persons—Kanhai Singh, Mukul Mishra and Karan Jha—none of whom were the petitioner, despite the petitioner’s name appearing in the case diary. The petitioner argued that he had not been identified in the CCTV footage and that the case against him was based merely on suspicion and a confessional statement, with no charges framed to date. The State opposed bail, but the Court noted the lack of concrete identification, the pending nature of the trial, and the petitioner’s custody since May 2025. Consequently, the Court granted bail on a bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, imposing conditions regarding surety, physical presence in court, and possible cancellation for non‑appearance.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted when the accused’s implication is based solely on suspicion and a confessional statement without CCTV identification.
- Whether the pending nature of the trial and absence of framed charges justify bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- suspicion
- CCTV evidence
- Arms Act
- BNS
- court conditions
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78208 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-751 Year-2024 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna
======================================================
Vishal Kumar Jha @ Vishal Jha @ Raja S/o Late Nand Kishore Jha R/o
Village- Manikchowk, P.S.- Runnisaidpur, District- Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Vikash Kumar Jha, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Shantanu Kumar, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL ORDER
4 23-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
APP for the State.
2. A prayer for bail has been made on behalf of the
petitioner in connection with Danapur P.S. Case no.751 of 2024
registered under sections 103, 111(2), 61(2) and 3(5) of BNS
and Section 27 of Arms Act.
3. Allegation in the F.I.R is that unknown miscreants
are alleged to have shot dead the informant’s son.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
although FIR was lodged against unknown miscreants, the name
of the petitioner subsequently transpired during course of
investigation, based upon CCTV footage, which has been
discussed in paragraph no.5 of the case diary, wherein the
petitioner is said to have been identified along with two
unknown persons. However, from paragraph number 22 and 23
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78208 of 2025(4) dt.23-02-2026
2/3
of the case diary, which contains the statement of brother of the
deceased, it would be apparent that the persons who were
identified in the CCTV footage are three different persons,
namely Kanhai Singh, Mukul Mishra and Karan Jha and not the
petitioner, rather the petitioner has been stated to be involved in
the case, but there is no case of him being identified in the
CCTV footage. It is further submitted that the deceased himself
was a man of several criminal antecedents and the FIR was
lodged after two days of the occurrence. So far as the criminal
antecedents of the petitioner is concerned, as a matter of fact,
the petitioner was remanded in four other cases after his
implication in the FIR being Purnahiya P.S. Case no. 8 of 2025,
which subsequently led to an acquittal. The petitioner is in
custody since 30.05.2025 and till date charges have not been
framed.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned
A.P.P. for the State.
6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the
implication of the petitioner is based upon suspicion and
confessional statement and he has not even been identified in
the CCTV footage, coupled with the fact that there is no
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78208 of 2025(4) dt.23-02-2026
3/3
likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future, the
petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in connection with
Danapur P.S. Case no.751 of 2024 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
where the case is pending/successor Court, subject to following
conditions:-
(I) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be the
family member/close relative of the petitioner.
(II) The petitioner shall remain physically present in
the learned trial Court on each date and shall cooperate in the
trial. In case the petitioner is absent on the two consecutive
dates without sufficient reasons, the learned trial Court would be
at liberty to cancel the bail bonds of the petitioner.
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
Harsh/-
U T
Checking your session…