Chandan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20170 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-119 Year-2025 Thana- DANAPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Chandan Kumar son of Subhash Prasad Gupta R/V- Chowdharana Road, PS -Danapur Distt -Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Deovind Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 03-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 306, 314, 316(2), 316(5), 317(4), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is said to have misappropriated Rs.84 lakhs from the firm of the informant where he was an employee.

4. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail after withdrawing of the earlier prayer vide order dated 12.12.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.62285 of 2025 (Annexure-P/1), by which a liberty was given to him to renew his prayer after framing of charge.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the charges have been framed on 06.02.2026 and the said

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20170 of 2026(2) dt.03-04-2026 2/2 order is part of Annexure-2 to this application. He further submitted that so far as the allegations against the petitioner is concerned, it relates to theft of articles from stock of the firm of the informant of which he was an employee, thereby causing wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the informant. It is further submitted that the allegations are not correct and, as a matter of fact, the petitioner has been made an accused in this case only on the basis of suspicion and he was targeted on account of some dispute with the informant. The petitioner is languishing in custody since 11.02.2025 with no criminal antecedent.

6. Learned APP for the State opposed the bail petition.

7.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the liberty granted to him vide order dated 12.12.2025 passed by this Court coupled with the fact that he has been made accused merely on suspicion, the above named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail 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 Court below where the case is pending/successor Court in connection with Danapur of P.S. Case No.119 of 2025. (Soni Shrivastava, J) Trivedi/- U T