Vikas Kumar @ Vikas Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19980 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-216 Year-2020 Thana- MANJHAGARH District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Vikas Kumar @ Vikas Yadav S/O Sanjay Yadav Resident of VillageLahladpur, P.S- Manjhagarh, District- Gopalganj. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mukesh Kant, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, APP Mr. Amitesh Kumar For the Informant :

Mr. Adesh Raj Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 30-04-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned APP for the State, and the learned counsel for the informant.

2. The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Manjhagarh P.S. Case No. 216 of 2020 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 364, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per the prosecution case, the petitioner is alleged to have assaulted the deceased, causing grievous injuries as a result of which the deceased died. The petitioner is named as one of the assailants in the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19980 of 2026(2) dt.30-04-2026 2/2 custody since 24.12.2025. It is also argued that the injuries mentioned in the post-mortem report do not support the version of the prosecution as alleged in the FIR. It is further contended that similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted bail.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. It is submitted that in a case of 2020 in which the petitioner is named, he is in custody since 24.12.2025 which indicates that he is an absconder.

6. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the allegations and the fact that the petitioner remained absconding for a considerable period, I am not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the application for bail stands dismissed for the present. The petitioner may renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

Shishir/- (Sandeep Kumar, J) U T