Vikash Kumar Mishra v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22001 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-58 Year-2024 Thana- BHORE District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Vikash Kumar Mishra Son of Amresh Mishra Resident of Village - Balbhadra Parsa, P.O. - Bhagvat Parsa, Police Station - Sripur, District - Gopalganj ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

Manish Kumar Pandit, S/o Baidhnath Pandit, R/o- Bhusaw, P.o. Hariharpur, Baniyapur, P.S. Baniyapur, District- Saran ... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Kumar Harshvardhan, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Md. Mushtaque Alam, APP For the Informant :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER 07-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2.

2.

Pursuant to the last order of this Court, the S.H.O. and the I.O. of the case have appeared and they have assisted this Court in the matter.

3.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Bhorey P.S. Case No.58 of 2024 registered under sections 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 469 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

4.

On earlier occasion, the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the main thrust of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22001 of 2025(7) dt.07-11-2025 2/2 allegation is against co-accused Manish Kumar Pandit. 5.

Considering the above argument, this Court had granted interim bail to the petitioner and had issued notice to said Manish Kumar Pandit and today he has appeared through his lawyer.

6.

Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2Manish Kumar Pandit and learned APP for the State assisted by the S.H.O. have taken this Court to various statements, from which it appears that it is the petitioner who had done the entire cheating and defalcation. The petitioner was the owner of the C.S.P. centre.

7.

Considering the aforesaid facts, the interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 15.10.2025 is hereby cancelled and this bail application is rejected. 8.

The personal appearance of the police officials is hereby dispensed with.

9.

The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same at the earliest.

(Sandeep Kumar, J) pawan/- U T