Lal Bihari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29160 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-73 Year-2025 Thana- AIRPORT District- Patna ====================================================== Lal Bihari S/o Udasen Prasad @ Ugarsen Prasad R/o - Navdiha @ Naudiha, P.S- Hilsa, District- Nalanda ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar For the Informant :

Ms. Supragya :

Mr. Aayush Abhishek ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-07-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 15.04.2025 in connection with Hawai Adda (Airport) P.S. Case No. 73 of 2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 137(2), 140(3), 61 (2) of B.N.S., 2023.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 13.04.2025 one Vishal Lawaji Lokhande gave a written report to S.H.O Hawai Adda P.S stating that on 12.04.2025 at 12.30A.M. his sister in law Ratnaprabha Laxman Sinde told him on his mobile that on 11.04.2025 her husband Laxman Sadhu Sinde went Patna from Pune by flight no. 6E653 & reached there at 07.30P.M. She further stated that her husband told her that one Shivraj Sagi whose mobile no. is 909359569, has sent a vehicle at airport, so he is going to Col India, Jharkhand. She further stated that when she called at 09.30 P.M. her husband did not

2/4 receive call. At 10.30P.M. another person picked up the phone, who told that Laxman Sadhu Sinde went for natural call. Thereafter she tried to connect her husband but did not connect. It is further stated that after receiving this information by his sister in law, he immediately went at the house of his sister in law then one report about missing was given at Korthud Police Station. Then with the staff of Korthud Police Station, he came at Patna from Pune and has given a written report.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It is next submitted that petitioner has not participated in the present crime in question and name of the petitioner has transpired on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused person, namely, Ranjeet Patel and except the aforesaid, nothing has come during the course of investigation to suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present case and Ranjeet Patel has stated that the petitioner has arranged the food for the kidnapped persons and co-accused person, namely, Sangita Kumari @ Choti, who have confessed the name of the petitioner in her confessional statement has been granted bail vide order dated 19.03.2026 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 69280 of 2025 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and another

3/4 co-accused person, namely, Bipatra Kumar has been granted bail vide order dated 03.04.2026 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 13018 of 2026 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet and petitioner is in custody since 15.04.2025.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State and learned counsel for the informant have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submit that it has come during the course of investigation that the petitioner has participated in the present crime in question. Apart from that bail application of co-accused person, namely, Vikash Kumar has been rejected vide order dated 16.02.2026 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 64270 of 2025 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and bail application of another co-accused person, namely, Kundan Kumar has been rejected vide order dated 26.11.2025 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 56519 of 2025 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Apart from that petitioner has antecedent of one case other than the present case.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand) with two sureties of

4/4 the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M.- IV, Patna in connection with Hawai Adda (Airport) P.S. Case No. 73 of 2025, subject to the following conditions:- i. Petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall be properly represented on each and every date fixed by the court and shall remain physically present as directed by the court and on his absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his bail bond shall be cancelled by the Court below. ii. If the petitioner tampers with the evidence or the witnesses, in that case, the prosecution will be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail.

iii. And further condition that the court below shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in case at any stage it is found that the petitioner has concealed his criminal antecedent, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for purpose of or in the name of verification.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Gaurav Sinha/- U T