Patna High CourtCR. MISC./2920/2026bail granted

Vijendra Ram @ Vijendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-05-01Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2920 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-16 Year-2021 Thana- MANIYARI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Vijendra Ram @ Vijendra Kumar Son of Naresh Ram Resident of VillagePurusottampur, P.S.- Maniyari, District- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 01-05-2026 Heard Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 15.01.2021 in connection with S.T. No. 102 of 2022 arising out of Maniyari P.S. Case No. 16 of 2021, F.I.R. dated 14.01.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 498(A), 307 and 34 of the IPC and later on Section 304(B) of the IPC was added.

3. According to prosecution case, all the accused persons including this petitioner set ablaze the informant's daughter due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been

2/4 implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. In fact, the petitioner was not present at the time of occurrence and he has been made accused merely on the ground that he is husband of the deceased. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 15.01.2021 and the trial is not in progress.

5. Vide order dated 03.04.2026, a report was called for with regard to the stage of trial. Report of the learned Trial Court dated 16.04.2026 reveals that "(3) That out of 06 (six) Chargesheeted witnesses, all the chargesheeted witnesses have been examined in this case. The Prosecution witness was closed on 08.07.2025. Then application u/s 311 crpc, to call the witness filed on 06.08.2025, which was allowed on 23.12.2025. The official witness circle officer, Kudhni, before whom fardbeyan of deceased was recorded not appeared yet as witness. The case is pending for the evidence of aforesaid witness. The next date is fixed on 27.04.2026 for evidence."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the report of the learned Trial Court, the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future and the petitioner is in

3/4 custody since 15.01.2021 i.e., more than five years.

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-VIII, Muzaffarpur in connection with S.T. No. 102 of 2022 arising out of Maniyari P.S. Case No. 16 of 2021, subject to the following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for

4/4 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.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- U T