Vishal Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39971 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2024 Thana- Pura police station District- Gaya ====================================================== Vishal Kumar S/O Jhaman Yadav Resident of Village- Bhattbigha, Kharkhura, PS- Delha, District- Gaya, ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-06-2026 Heard Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 12.03.2026, in connection with Pura P.S. Case No. 24 of 2024, F.I.R. dated 01.06.2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 392, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The F.I.R. of the occurrence of loot is against unknown.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. and the name of the petitioner has been transpired on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused person

2/4 namely Kaushal Kumar and nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and except the confessional statement of co-accused person, no other cogent material has come during investigation to suggest the involvement of the petitioner in the present occurrence and till date no TIP was conducted by the prosecution. He further submits that co-accused person, namely, Akash Kumar @ Kaushal Kumar has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.01.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 89515 of 2024, another co-accused person, namely, Ritik Raj has been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 20878 of 2025 respectively. He further submits that the police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 12.03.2026.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner carries four more cases other than the present one but fairly submits on the basis of paragraph-3 of the bail petition that the petitioner is on bail in the pending matters.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case

3/4 and the fact that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R and the name of the petitioner has been transpired on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused person and till date no TIP was conducted by the prosecution, let the petitioner, above named, be released 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 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in connection with Pura P.S. Case No. 24 of 2024, subject to the following conditions :-

(1) 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.

(2) 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.

(3) 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 antecedents, the court below shall take step for cancellation of bail bond of the petitioner. However, the

4/4 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) Ibrar//- U T