Saurabh Kumar @ Vishawajeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39688 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-816 Year-2025 Thana- VAISHALI District- Vaishali ====================================================== Saurabh Kumar @ Vishawajeet Kumar Son of Ranveer Kumar Resident of Village - Adinpur, P.S.- Lalganj, District - Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Satya Prakash Sinha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Ganesh Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 25-06-2026 Heard Mr.Satya Prakash Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. Petitioner seek bail who is in custody since 17.11.2025 in connection with Vaishali P.S. Case No. 816 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 16.11.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238, 61(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, petitioner is running coaching institute and in the said institute the dead body of informant's grand son was found and the informant suspects that these petitioner along with other accused persons have killed his grandson over a money dispute.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has clean antecedent and he has falsely been
2/4 implicated in the present case. The allegation as alleged in the F.I.R is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. It appears form the FIR itself that the informant is not the eye witness of the alleged occurrence and even no one is the eye witness of the said occurrence. As per the allegation in the FIR, the informant alleged that his pattidar who happens to be the co-accused in the present case along with the petitioner have committed the present crime in question.
He further submits that the petitioner has no concern at all with the co-accused Vinod Thakur, Ravi Ranjan Thakur, Mithilesh Thakur and Rajiv Ranjan and they are pattidar of the informant and informant has made suspicion against the petitioner and other accused persons and except the suspicion, nothing has come during investigation which suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence. Further submits that co-accused persosn, namely, Satyam Kumar @ Sonu Kumar & Anr. have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 29.04.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No.11675 of 2026. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 17.11.2025.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
3/4 vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner is involved in the present crime in question. He further submits that witnesses have stated that the petitioner has come in the institute in question which was recorded in paragraph nos. 78 and 81 of the case diary but fairly submits that except the suspicion, nothing has come during investigation which suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioner.
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 the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned C.J.M., Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Vaishali P.S. Case No. 816 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/her absence on two consecutive dates without sufficient reason, his/her 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
4/4 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) Nitesh/- U T