Ankit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34169 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-138 Year-2026 Thana- MANJHI District- Saran ====================================================== Ankit Kumar Son of Dharmendra Kumar Soni Resident of Village- Kopa, P.O.- Kopa Bazar, P.S.- Kopa, District- Saran at Chapra- 841214 ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Jeetendra Narayan, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GIRIJISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 23-07-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.
2. . The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with Manjhi P.S. Case No. 138 of 2026 corresponding to G.R. No. 3071 of 2026 registered for alleged offences under sections 103(1) and 303(2) of B.N.S, 2023.
3. According to the prosecution case, on 10.03.2026 at around 3:20 AM, during Ramadan, the informant called his mother for prayers, but she did not answer. He then called his aunt and asked why she was not picking up the phone. When his aunt went to check then, she saw the items in the room were scattered, and she was dead. The informant further claimed that around midnight, between 12:00 AM and 12:30 AM, some unknown thieves forcibly entered her room and looted jewellery
2/4 and cash worth of approximately four lakh rupees. The informant's mother was killed by suffocation and she was attacked on her abdomen with a sharp weapon and murdered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent, committed no offence, and has been falsely implicated in the instant case for purchasing the stolen jewellery of Rs. 10,500/- on the confessional statement of coaccused, Vivek Kumar @ Chorwa, Banti Kumar and Sarfaraz Ali @ Golu. Save and except the confessional statement of coaccused, Vivek Kumar @ Chorwa, Banti Kumar and Sarfaraz Ali @ Golu, no cogent material has surfaced during course of investigation against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent and no incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 21.03.2026. Hence, the petitioner may be granted the bail.
5. Learned A.P.P appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the prayer for bail application of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner was involved in the present crime.
6. Heard the parties and perused the records as well as the materials available on records.
3/4
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and perused the case record and case diary, nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner, and considering the period of custody, let the petitioner, above named, be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV, Saran at Chapra in connection with Manjhi P.S. Case No. 138 of 2026 corresponding to G.R. No. 3071 of 2026, 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 witness, 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
4/4 criminal antecedents, 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.
(Girijish Kumar, J) dhaneshwar/- U T