Satyendra Kumar @ Vihul v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39929 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-15 Year-2026 Thana- SINDHUGAR District- Gaya ====================================================== Satyendra Kumar @ Vihul S/o Nageshwar Yadav R/o Vill- Bela, P.S.- Sindhugarh, Distt- Gaya (Gayaji) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Prabhat, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Anzarul Haque Sahara, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-06-2026 Heard Mr. Krishna Prabhat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Md. Anzarul Haque Sahara, learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 02.05.2026, in connection with Sindhugarh P.S. Case No. 15 of 2026, F.I.R. dated 01.02.2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 127(2), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 303(2), 352, 351(3), 3(5) of the B.N.S.

3. Allegation against the petitioner is that he has assaulted to the informant due to which he sustained injury.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It appears from the F.I.R. that the date of occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R. is13.01.2026 but the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39929 of 2026(2) dt.29-06-2026 2/3 present F.I.R. was instituted on 01.02.2026 after delay of about 18 (eighteen) days without giving any explanation of delay. Although the petitioner is named in the F.I.R. but from perusal of the F.I.R. it appears that there is no specific allegatin of any assault or overt act attributed against the petitioner rather there is general and omnibus allegation against all the accused persons including the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 02.05.2026.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner having clean antecedent and there is no specific allegation against the petitioner and F.I.R. has been instituted after delay of eighteen (18) days, 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 A.C.J.M.- II, Sherghati, Gaya Ji in connection with Sindhugarh P.S. Case No. 15 of 2026, 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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39929 of 2026(2) dt.29-06-2026 3/3 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 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