Vikesh Kumar @ Vikash Singh v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6886 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-269 Year-2024 Thana- Kavaiya District- Lakhisarai ====================================================== Vikesh Kumar @ Vikash Singh Son of Ramanuj Singh R/O Village - Sahur, P.S.- Surajgarha, District - Lakhisarai.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Rajesh Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Yogendra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 04-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Kabaiya P.S. Case No.269 of 2024, dated 09.12.2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 351, 352, 117(3), 74, 191(2) and 191(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
3. The informant alleges that on 09.12.2024 at about 3:00 P.M., the petitioner and co-accused were illegally constructing a boundary wall on disputed land despite proceedings under Section 163 BNSS. When the informant and her son Ajit Singh objected, they were assaulted by the accused and about 30 unknown armed persons, resulting in injuries and the disrobing of the informant. It is further alleged that the
2/4 accused later threatened the informant's other son, Santosh Singh, via WhatsApp, warning that they would kill the informant and her sons if a case was filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the FIR names five accused persons and thirty unnamed accused persons. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are general and omnibus. There exists a land dispute between the parties, and the entire incident is alleged to have occurred in connection with the construction of a boundary wall. He further submits that the injuries do not corroborate the allegations made against the petitioner, as the injury sustained by the informant is simple in nature. Although it is alleged that the petitioner was carrying arms, no injury has been caused by any firearm, and no case has been registered under the Arms Act.
It is next submitted that specific allegations are made against Sunny Suman and Ravi Suman, whose bail applications were rejected by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.05.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 10890 of 2025, whereas Vishnudev Prasad Swarnkar, who is alleged to have given the order, has been granted bail.
3/4 antecedents.
5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
6. Taking into account that there is general and omnibus allegation against the petitioner, let the above named petitioner, be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned Court below within a period of six weeks from today, 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 C.J.M., Lakhisarai/Successor Court in connection with Kabaiya P.S. Case No.269 of 2024 subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS as well as the following conditions:
(i) One of the bailors should be the family member/relative of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document to show his/her bona fide;
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
4/4 promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds. (Ajit Kumar, J) shikha/- U T