Vikram Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14725 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-501 Year-2014 Thana- RUNISAIDPUR District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Vikram Kumar S/o- Randhir Singh Village- Madhaul PS- Runni Saidpur District- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pushkar Narayan Shahi, Sr. Adv Mr.Diwanshu Kumar, Adv For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ganesh Prasad Singh, App ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 03-07-2026 1.

Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pushkar Narayan Shahi and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2.

The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Runni Saidpur PS Case No. 501 of 2014 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3.

This is the second attempt of the petitioner to seek regular bail.

4.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had earlier moved before this Court seeking regular bail by filing Cr. Misc No. 28754 of 2025 and the same came to be rejected by an order dated 6-8-2025. It is next submitted that petitioner is in custody since 22-10-2020 and out

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.14725 of 2026(3) dt.03-07-2026 2/2 of 11 witnesses, only 6 witnesses till date have been examined. 5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that no doubt petitioner is in custody for more than five years, but then the case is of the year 2014 and the petitioner was arrested in the year 2020, as such he was also absconding for six years. It is also submitted that out of 11 witnesses, 6 witness have been examined and one witness has died and the next date fixed for prosecution evidence is 4-72026. It is further submitted that since only 4 witnesses require to be examined as such it is not a fit case for grant of bail when petitioner on the earlier occasion had not approached the Court with clean hands as he has antecedent of three cases but in Cr. Misc No. 28754 of 2025, he had pleaded at para-3 that petitioner has antecedent of one case.

6.

Considering the submission made by learned APP, the Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7.

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T