Patna High Court
Vikash Kumar @ DonversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SOURENDRA PANDEY
Holding
The court allowed the petition for anticipatory bail, finding that the petitioner’s case did not warrant denial of bail in the absence of direct evidence.
Summary
Vikash Kumar sought anticipatory bail in a case registered under Sections 399/402 of the IPC and Sections 25(1‑B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, after co‑accused persons named him as a participant in a planned crime. The prosecution’s case relied solely on the statements of the co‑accused and the recovery of weapons from them, with no material linking the petitioner to the offence or any incriminating article found in his possession. The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated due to personal differences and had a clean antecedent. The State opposed the bail, contending the seriousness of the offences. The High Court, after considering the lack of direct evidence against the petitioner, granted anticipatory bail subject to stringent conditions, including surety, presence in court, and verification of criminal antecedent.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted when the only evidence against the petitioner is the testimony of co‑accused and no material is recovered from him
- Whether the conditions imposed under Section 438(2) of the CrPC are sufficient to safeguard the trial process
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)(a), 26, 35
- B.N.S.S. — s. 482(2)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 438(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 399, 402
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Indian Penal Code
- Arms Act
- co‑accused testimony
- bail conditions
- criminal antecedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.85395 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2024 Thana- KARTAHA District- Vaishali
======================================================
Vikash Kumar @ Don S/O Prabhuvan Rai R/O Village- Ghataro, P.S.-
Kartanha, Dist.- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms. Asha Devi, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
2 15-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.P.P. for the State.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with
Kartanha P.S. Case No. 60 of 2024 registered for the offences
under Sections 399/402 of the I.P.C. and under Sectoins 25(1-B)
(a)/26/35 of the Arms Act.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant, while on
patrolling duty, received secret information that four to five
persons had assembled in a mango orchard situated near
Jagdamba asthan and were allegedly planning to commit a
crime. It has further been alleged that the police conducted a
raid at the said place and apprehended three persons on the spot,
namely, Avinash Kumar, Abhishek Kumar and Ritikesh Kumar
@ Chhotu. Upon search, one country-made pistol along with
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85395 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
2/4
one live cartridge and one mobile phone was recovered from the
co-accused Avinash Kumar, while one 8 mm live cartridge along
with mobile phone was recovered from Abhishek Kumar and
one smart phone recovered from Ritikesh Kumar. It is further
alleged that the apprehended accused persons disclosed the
names of persons who had fled from the place of occurrence,
including the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely
been implicated due to personal differences, solely on the basis
of disclosure made by the co-accused persons. It has further
been submitted that there is no material on record to connect the
petitioner with the present case and no incriminating article has
been recovered either from the conscious possession or from the
house of the petitioner. It has lastly been submitted that the
petitioner carries clean antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed
the prayer for anticipatory bail.
6. Considering the aforesaid submission, facts and
circumstances of the case, let the petitioner above named be
released on anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest or surrender
before the learned Court below within a period of four weeks
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85395 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
3/4
from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.10,000/-(ten
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned Court below where the case is
pending/successor court in connection with Kartanha P.S. Case
No. 60 of 2024 subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with
corresponding Section 482(2) of B.N.S.S. as well as subject to
the following conditions:-
(i) One of the bailors of the petitioner shall be his
close relative.
(ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present
in Court on each date of the trial.
(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) If the petitioner is found involved in similar
nature of offence in future, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move for cancellation of his bail bond.
(v) The learned Court below shall verify the
criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at
any stage it is found that the petitioner has
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.85395 of 2025(2) dt.15-01-2026
4/4
concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below
shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the
petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in
terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be
delayed for purpose of or in the name of
verification.
7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is
allowed.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
aditya/-
U
Checking your session…