Satyam Kumar @ Sonu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11675 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-816 Year-2025 Thana- VAISHALI District- Vaishali ====================================================== 1.
Satyam Kumar @ Sonu Kumar S/O Subodh Kumar Singh R/O VillBarhatia, P.S. - Vaishali Dist.- Vaishali 2.
Sunny Kumar S/O Subodh Kumar Singh R/O Vill- Barhatia, P.S. - Vaishali Dist.- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-04-2026 Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioners seeks bail who are in custody since 17.11.2025 in connection with Vaishali P.S. Case No. 816 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 16.11.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238, 61(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, petitioners are running coaching institute and in the said institute the dead body of informant's grand son was found and the informant suspects that these petitioners along with other accused persons have killed his grandson over a money dispute.
2/4
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have clean antecedent and they have falsely been implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the F.I.R is false and fabricated and the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. It appears form the FIR itself that the informant is not the eye witness of the alleged occurrence and even no one is the eye witness of the said occurrence. As per the allegation in the FIR, the informant alleged that his pattidar who happens to be the co-accused in the present case along with the petitioners have committed the present crime in question.
He further submits that the petitioners have no concern at all with the co-accused Vinod Thakur, RAvi Ranjan Thakur, Mithilesh Thakur and Rajiv Ranjan and they are pattidar of the informant and informant has made suspicion against the petitioners and other accused persons and except the suspicion, nothing has come during investigation which suggest the involvement of the petitioners in the present occurrence. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioners. The petitioners are in custody since 17.11.2025.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioners and
3/4 submits that petitioners are involved in the present crime in question. He further submits that witnesses have stated that the petitioners have came in the institute in question which was recorded in paragraph nos. 78 and 81 of the case diary but fairly submits that except the suspicion, nothing has come during investigation which suggest the involvement of the petitioners in the present occurrence. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioners.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioners, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned J.M. 1st Class, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Vaishali P.S. Case No. 816 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:- i. Petitioners 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 their absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, their bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioners tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to
4/4 move for cancellation of bail.
iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioners have concealed their criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners. 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