Nilesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13120 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-17 Year-2026 Thana- BEGUSARAI MUFFASIL DistrictBegusarai ====================================================== 1.

Nilesh Kumar S/O Uma Shankar Singh R/O Vill- Nayagaon P.s- Nayagaon, Dist.- Begusarai 2.

Kundan Kumar S/O Uma shankar Singh R/O Vill- Nayagaon P.s- Nayagaon, Dist.- Begusarai 3.

Himanshu Kumar S/O Mukesh Kunwar R/O Vill- Nayagaon P.s- Nayagaon, Dist.- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shubhesh Pandey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Khurshid Anwar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-03-2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned APP for the State.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by an order dated 10.03.2026, but at Para-3 inadvertently it has been recorded that petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of four cases when he has antecedent of five cases and the same has been pleaded at Para-3 of the anticipatory bail application.

3. The learned APP for the State does not dispute the said submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the order dated 10.03.2026 is modified to the extent that at Para-

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13120 of 2026(3) dt.13-03-2026 2/2 3 with respect to petitioner no. 2 it shall be read that he has antecedent of five cases instead of four cases and accordingly Para-7 of the order dated 10.03.2026 also shall be read as- It is made clear that thereafter the learned trial court shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioners and if it is found that petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of more than five cases, petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of more than five cases and petitioner no. 3 has antecedent of more than three cases, it would be presumed that petitioners had concealed their antecedent before this Court at para 3 of the anticipatory bail application in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be confirmed but if it is found on verification that petitioner no. 1 has antecedent of only five cases, petitioner no. 2 has antecedent of only five cases and petitioner no. 3 has antecedent of only three cases in that event the provisional anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.

5. The order dated 10.03.2026 is modified to the extent indicated above.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T