Vivek Kumar @ Vickey Kumar @ Vickey v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20539 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-259 Year-2022 Thana- BIHAR District- Nalanda ====================================================== Vivek Kumar @ Vickey Kumar @ Vickey Son of Suresh Mahto Resident of village - Chande, Ps- Karma, Dist- Sheikhpura ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Rudal Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Rabindra Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 11-05-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State Mr. Rabindra Kumar.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in Bihar P. S. Case No. 259 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 379, 392 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of four cases and is in custody since 17.01.2026 and the informant alleges that he works with flipkart and had gone to deliver goods when he received a call on his mobile and the caller asked him to deliver his parcel, accordingly, he went to the place of occurrence, when the accused persons looted him and took his motorcycle.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name transpired in the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20539 of 2026(2) dt.11-05-2026 2/2 confessional statement of apprehended accused in police custody, which does not have any evidentiary value.
5. Learned A.P.P. vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that allegation is of loot. It is also submitted that petitioner has antecedent of four cases and if privilege of regular bail is granted, the petitioner may abscond. At this stage, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that no doubt petitioner has antecedent of four cases but then he was acquitted in one case.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
7. Accordingly, the regular bail application of the petitioner stands rejected.
8. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge. (Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T