Raushan Kumar @ Roushan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4108 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-91 Year-2025 Thana- VIGILANCE District- Patna ====================================================== Raushan Kumar @ Roushan Kumar Son of Pramod Kumar Yadav R/o Village - Goshpur, P.S. - Simri Bakhtiyarpur, Dist. - Saharsa. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Director General of Vigilance Investigation Bureau ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Jagannath Singh, Advocate Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 28-01-2026 Heard Mr. Bijendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 15.10.2025 in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 91 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 13.10.2025 for the offences punishable under Section 7(a), 7A & 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 61(2) of the BNS, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, petitioner has demanded Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand) from the informant for not lodging the FIR.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the FIR is false and fabricated and the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4108 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026 2/3 petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. As per allegation in the FIR, the petitioner had demanded Rs. 20,000/- from the informant for not lodging the FIR and Rs. 12,000/- has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has never demanded any bribe from the informant. He further submits that the police after investigation, submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 15.10.2025.
5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and petitioner has clean antecedent and police has submitted chargesheet against the petitioner, 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 Special Judge, Vigilance (Trap), Bhagalpur, in connection with Vigilance P.S. Case No. 91 of 2025, with 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
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4108 of 2026(2) dt.28-01-2026 3/3 on her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her 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 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) Ranjeet/- U T