Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Ram v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.35988 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-48 Year-2026 Thana- SIKANDRA District- Jamui ====================================================== 1.
Pankaj Kumar @ Pankaj Ram S/o Umesh Ram Resident of Village-Pohe, P.S-Sikandra, District-Jamui, Bihar 2.
Raghunandan Yadav S/o Rajendra Yadav Resident of Village- Panchmahua, P.S.- Sikandra, District - Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Ms. Archana Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr. Swarna Roy, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA ORAL ORDER 10-06-2026 Heard Ms. Archana Sinha, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners and learned APP for the State, through virtual mode.
2. A prayer for bail has been made on behalf of the petitioners in connection with Sikandra P.S. Case no. 48 of 2026 registered under section 115(2), 119(1), 126(2), 127(7), 135, 304(2), 351(2) and 351(3) read with Section 3(5) of BNS.
3. Allegation in the F.I.R is that accused Shankar Kumar and Mahendra Yadav along with 8-10 unknown stopped the vehicle of informant, assaulted him and snatched Rs.5,000/- from his pocket.
4. Ms. Archana Sinha, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits, at the outset, that the present petitioners have
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35988 of 2026(2) dt.10-06-2026 2/3 not been named in the FIR and the allegations made in the FIR are also general and ominous in nature. It is further submitted that neither any money nor any incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of these petitioners and further even during the course of investigation no independent witness has been examined in support of the occurrence. It has also been submitted that the petitioner no.1 Pankaj Kumar has also filed a complaint case against the informant which shows the animosity between the parties. The petitioners are in custody since 28.03.2026 and undertake to co-operate in the case/trial.
5. The application for bail is opposed by learned A.P.P. for the State on the ground that petitioner no.2 has two criminal antecedents. In response, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 has no criminal antecedent while petitioner no.2 is on bail in the said two cases.
6. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioners were not named in the FIR, the petitioners are directed to be enlarged on bail in connection with Sikandra P.S. Case no. 48 of 2026 on each of them furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Court concerned
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.35988 of 2026(2) dt.10-06-2026 3/3 where the case is pending/successor Court, subject to the following conditions:- (I) One of the bailors of the petitioners shall be the family member/close relative of the petitioners. (II) They shall co-operate in the case/trial. (Soni Shrivastava, J) Harsh/- U T