Vikesh Pandey v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26852 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-293 Year-2025 Thana- KARAKAT District- Rohtas ====================================================== Vikesh Pandey S/o Late Arun Pandey R/o Village - Jamua Tola, P.S - Karakat, District - Rohtas ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Nagendra Upadhyay, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 09-06-2026 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 Section 103(1) of the B.N.S.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant alleged that the petitioner along with other killed his father.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would be evident from the First Information Report itself that it was normal affair that the deceased used to go to the house of Arun Pandey and his son Vikesh Pandey (petitioner herein) and used to engage in normal talks. Even on 02.06.2025, the deceased had gone to the premises of Arun Pandey and the petitioner where they were talking very normally. Since the deceased did not come back in the night, the informant went in
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26852 of 2026(3) dt.09-06-2026 2/3 search and found that the deceased had fallen in the premises of the petitioner and Arun Pandey, with bleeding injuries. The petitioner along with Arun Pandey was thus made an accused only on the basis of suspicion. The materials collected during the course of investigation especially paragraph nos.8, 9, 11 and 44, as mentioned in the bail rejection order, only indicate the fact that the deceased had gone to the premises of the petitioner and his father and did not come back in the night and the implication of the petitioner is based purely on suspicion. There is neither any direct evidence nor any eye-witness and further no motive also has been alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 05.06.2025 and charge-sheet has been submitted.
5. Learned APP for the State opposed the grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner has criminal antecedent. However, in response it has been submitted that the petitioner is on bail in all the cases.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and considering the fact that it appears to be a case of no eye-witness and is based on suspicion and further, the FIR itself indicates cordial relations between the deceased and the petitioner, let the above named petitioner, be released
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26852 of 2026(3) dt.09-06-2026 3/3 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 2nd District and Additional Sessions Judge, Bikramganj, Rohtas/concerned Court below in connection with Karakat P.S. Case No. 293 of 2025 subject to condition that:- (i) One of the bailors will be his own blood relative, preferably, father, mother, brother, sister. (ii) The petitioner shall remain physically present in court on each and every date during trial and in the event of failure on two consecutive dates without sufficient reasons, his bail bonds shall be liable to be cancelled by the learned court concerned.
(Soni Shrivastava, J) anand/- U T