Vivek Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17210 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-130 Year-2024 Thana- PRATAPGANJ District- Supaul ====================================================== Vivek Kumar S/o Naresh Mandal R/o - Ward no. 11, Bhawanipur Dakshin, P.S - Pratapganj, District - Supaul ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Satish Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 30-04-2026 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109, 352, 351(2), 351(3), 308(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent. It is next submitted that in sum and substance the informant alleges that the accused persons including the petitioner came and petitioner instigated his father, Naresh, for killing Satrudhan, on which Naresh assaulted Satrudhan by rod causing injury on head. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17210 of 2026(3) dt.30-04-2026 2/3 informant. It is next submitted that the informant is claiming that the land in dispute has been purchased by him from one Vijay Kumar Bhagat and his wife, Gauri Kumari, on 2-5-2024. It is further submitted that petitioner and Vijay Kumar Bhagat are related and are having dispute relating to property for which Title Partition Suit No. 47 of 2017 is pending adjudication and Vijay Kumar Bhagat, during pendency of the aforesaid title partition suit, sold the land in dispute in favour of the informant, on account of which an altercation took place leading to the occurrence, but then it is submitted that petitioner is not alleged to have assaulted Satrudhan. It is further submitted that copy of the Title Partition Suit No.

47 of 2017 has been brought on record by filing supplementary affidavit. It is also submitted that petitioner is a student and has been falsely implicated in the instant case being son of Naresh. It is next submitted that petitioner is a young boy aged about 20 years and if he is sent to judicial custody in the nature of allegation as alleged in the FIR, his entire career would get jeopardized and chances are bright that he may come in contact with hardened criminals. 5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner but then is not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.17210 of 2026(3) dt.30-04-2026 3/3 of the petitioner that petitioner is not alleged to have assaulted the deceased.

6.

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks from today, be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in connection with Pratapganj P.S. Case No. 130 of 2024, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 482 (2) of the BNSS. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T