Patna High Court
Vimlesh Kumar JhaversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL GRANTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner with specified conditions.
Summary
Vimlesh Kumar Jha applied for anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case registered under several sections of the Bihar Narcotic Substances Act, 2023 and the Arms Act. The informant alleged that Jha was part of a conspiracy to murder a person and that his son had recorded the plot, but no material linking Jha to the alleged offence was found during investigation. Jha contended that he was falsely implicated and that the FIR was based merely on suspicion. The State opposed the bail, fearing Jha might abscond or tamper with evidence, while Jha assured cooperation with the investigation. The Court, after considering the submissions, granted anticipatory bail subject to a Rs.50,000 bond, two sureties, and conditions under Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., with the provision that bail could be cancelled if Jha fails to cooperate or attempts to delay trial.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner under the circumstances.
- Whether the petitioner is likely to abscond or tamper with evidence if bail is granted.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR constitute sufficient ground for denial of bail.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- false implication
- conspiracy
- Arms Act
- Section 482
- bail conditions
- criminal procedure
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.89494 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-89 Year-2025 Thana- Mehsoul District- Sitamarhi
======================================================
Vimlesh Kumar Jha S/O Nawal Jha @ Nawal Kishore Jha Resident of
Village- Bhasar, P.S.- Dumra, Dist- Sitamarhi
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the State : Dr. (Mrs.) Indiwar Kumari, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Ashish Kumar Ranjan, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
3 18-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned APP
for the State as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the informant.
2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 126, 115(2), 103(1),
61(2) and 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023 as well as Sections 25(1-b)a, 26,
35 and 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedents of two cases. It is next submitted that
the informant alleges that his elder son, Basim Anwar Khan @
Puttu had come to his house and was looking perturbed,
accordingly, the informant asked his son why he is looking
perturbed, on which he disclosed that Asgar Hussain, Md. Nasir
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89494 of 2025(3) dt.18-02-2026
2/4
Ahmad, Devendra Shah, Dhananjay Kumar, Azizur Rahman and
petitioner had met in the shop of Ejaj Shah for the purposes of
getting him killed and have also given money to the shooters
and the shooters can kill him any time. It is further alleged that
his son also disclosed that he had recorded the aforesaid fact in
his mobile, further his son also disclosed that Lal’s brother Md.
Islam is also involved in the conspiracy and the aforesaid
accused persons can get him killed any time, on which
informant asked his son that why he did not disclose the said
fact to the police, on which his son said that in the morning he
will accompany the informant to the police station for giving
information to the police about the conspiracy. It is next alleged
that thereafter his son left for his house and when he reached
near his house, the informant heard sound of firing, accordingly,
he came out and saw that his son was shot and his family
members Sahin Anwar Khan and Sahil Parwez disclosed that
they have seen the three shooters who committed the
occurrence, but they did not know their name but can identify
by their face.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is further submitted that from perusal of the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89494 of 2025(3) dt.18-02-2026
3/4
allegations, as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that the
entire allegation hinges around suspicion. It is next submitted
that during course of investigation also, no material transpired
connecting the petitioner with the offence. It is next submitted
that Dhananjay Kumar had approached this Court seeking
anticipatory bail by filing Criminal Miscellaneous No.65688 of
2025 and the same came to be allowed by an order dated
16.01.2026. It is further submitted that case of the petitioner is
on much better footing than Dhananjay Kumar.
5. Learned APP for the State and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the informant oppose the anticipatory
bail application but then learned counsel for the informant is not
in a position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that case of the petitioner is on a better footing
than Dhananjay Kumar but then it is submitted that if privilege
of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner
may abscond on which the learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that petitioner will not abscond rather will cooperate in
the investigation to prove his innocence.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, let petitioner, above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.89494 of 2025(3) dt.18-02-2026
4/4
from today, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like
amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Sitamarhi in connection with Mehsoul P.S. Case
No.89 of 2025, subject to the conditions as laid down under
Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S.
7. It is made clear that one of the bailors of the
petitioner shall be his father, namely, Nawal Jha @ Nawal
Kishore Jha.
8. It is further made clear that in the event if charge-
sheet is submitted and the learned trial court comes to a
conclusion that petitioner is not cooperating in framing of
charge or after framing of charge is trying to delay the trial in
any manner, in both the conditions, the learned trial court shall
be at liberty to cancel the bail bond of the petitioner.
9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned
police station through the learned Trial Court.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sanjay/-
U T
Checking your session…