Vicky Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.44710 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-124 Year-2026 Thana- SAHAJITPUR District- Saran ====================================================== 1.
Vicky Kumar Son of Yogendra Sah Resident of village- Sisai, Po and PsSahajitpur, Dist- Saran at Chapra 2.
Rinku Devi wife of Yogendra Sah Resident of village- Sisai, Po and PsSahajitpur, Dist- Saran at Chapra ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Jeetendra Narayan, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 08-07-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Sahajitpur P.S. Case No.124 of 2026, F.I.R dated 30.04.2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109, 303(2), 351(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3. According to prosecution case, in brief, is that the informant, Ranjan Kumar, lodged a written report at Sahajitpur Police Station on 30.04.2026 alleging that on 29.04.2026, at about 6:00 p.m., while he was closing his shop due to a thunderstorm, the accused persons, Vicky Kumar, Anshu
2/4 Kumar, Yogendra Sah, Rinku Devi, Kajal Kumari, and Anchal Kumari, arrived, accused him of theft, abused and assaulted him with lathis and rods, causing injuries. When the informant's brother intervened to rescue him, he was also assaulted and sustained injuries. It is further alleged that the accused persons took Rs.5,000 from the cash box of the shop.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the there is no specific allegation against the petitioners rather the allegations are general and omnibus in nature. It has next been submitted that for a petty dispute between the agnates, the incident is said to have taken place and in the course of said altercation, the injury is said to have been sustained, which on examination by the treating Doctor, has been found to be simple in nature, which fact has been submitted by the petitioner by referring to the observations made in the impugned order. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have no criminal antecedent.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail application.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances that due to altercation, both the parties have sustained injuries, which are found to be simple in nature and there is no specific
3/4 allegation against the petitioners rather the allegations are general and omnibus in nature and the petitioners have clean antecedent. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. Let the petitioners, above named, in the event of their arrest or surrender before the Court below within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, 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 Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Saran at Chapra, in connection with Sahajitpur P.S. Case No.124 of 2026, subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and with other following conditions:- (i) one of the bailors should be the family member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide official document/personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide; (ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself; (iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
4/4 promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds. (Ajit Kumar, J) sharun/- U T