← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./40840/2026bail granted

Priyanshu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-06-30Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40840 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-61 Year-2026 Thana- MANJHI District- Saran ====================================================== Priyanshu Kumar S/o Jitendra Prasad R/o Village - Ramgarh, P.S. - Chainpur, District - Siwan, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Uma Kant Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Choubey Jawahar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 30-06-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail who is in custody since 01.04.2026 in connection with Manjhi P.S. Case No. 61 of 2026 for the offence punishable under Section 310(2) of B.N.S. and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. According to prosecution case, one Brij Biharilal Gupta, the informant of the case has given his written statement before the Station House Officer, Manjhi Police Station alleging therein that on 08.02.2026 at about 12:48 P.M. five accused persons with two motorcycle one white colour Apache Motorcycle and 2nd Black colour Splendor Motorcycle came at the shop of the informant with guns and abusing him and two accused persons beat his son on his head with guns buts and thereafter they looted ornament of about 5 to 6 kg Silver in the shop and showing a weapon, filled the white colour bag with the jewelry and took it out and fled on their motorcycle by firing in

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40840 of 2026(2) dt.30-06-2026 2/3 the air.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that initially the petitioner was not named in the FIR and the name of the petitioner has transpired during the course of investigation on the basis of self confessional statement of the petitioner as well as confessional statement of other co-accused persons. It is next submitted that till date no TIP has been conducted by the prosecution. It is next submitted that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that police after investigation has submitted charge-sheet and petitioner is in custody since 01.04.2026.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case other than the present case but fairly submits that the petitioner is on bail in the pending matter.

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

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.40840 of 2026(2) dt.30-06-2026 3/3 the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.MIV, Saran at Chapra (Bihar) in connection with Manjhi P.S. Case No.61 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 witnesses, 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 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) Gaurav Sinha/- U T