Saurav Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65664 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-356 Year-2025 Thana- WARISLIGANJ District- Nawada ====================================================== Saurav Kumar S/o Shravan Mahto @ Sarban Kumar R/o Village- Goraper, P.S.- Warisaliganj, District- Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== with CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 67285 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-356 Year-2025 Thana- WARISLIGANJ District- Nawada ====================================================== Gaurav Kumar Son of Shravan Mahto Resident Of Village- Goraper, PsWarisaliganj, Dist- Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 65664 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ram Prasad Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Nagendra Prasad, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 67285 of 2025) For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ram Prasad Singh, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 18-09-2025 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Warisaliganj P.S. Case No. 356 of 2025 for the offence registered under sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2), 111(4), 3(5) of the BNS, 2025 and section 66B, 66D of
2/4 the I.T. Act lodged on 02.07.2025 by the informant Akhileshwar Singh.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that on confidential information, the Police raided a mango orchard. Though a dozen people managed to escape, six were apprehended and number of mobile phones with different sim cards recovered/seized. One of them confessed to the cyber crime and named these petitioners to be accomplice. This led to their implication in the FIR.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submit that save and except the confession, nothing is on record to show their complicity. The mobile/sim recovered/seized do not belong to them. None have criminal antecedent, in fact, both the brothers are ready to diligently appear in trial and the last submission is that similar situate Ranjan Kumar has been granted relief by a Co-ordinate Bench in Cr. Misc. No. 61463 of 2025.
5. Let the same be kept on record.
6. Learned APPs for the State, on the other hand, opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail in both the cases submitting that one of the apprehended person named them.
6. Taking into account the submissions of the parties
3/4 as also the fact that they do not have criminal antecedent nor anything incriminating has been recovered implicating them in the present crime and one of the similar placed accused has been granted relief, as stated above, in that background, this Court is inclined to grant them the anticipatory bail with conditions.
7. Let the petitioners in the event of arrest or surrender within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order, shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing bail of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M.-IV, Nawada in connection with Warisaliganj P.S. Case No. 356 of 2025 subject to condition as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) one of the bailor should be the family members/relatives of the petitioners, who shall provide official document to show his bona fide;
(ii) the petitioners 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 bail bond by the Trial court itself;
(iii) the petitioners shall appear before the concerned police station every fortnight for next six months to mark
4/4 attendance and at the end of the period, the certificate be submitted to the Court;
(iv) the petitioners shall in no way try to induce or 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;
(v) the petitioners shall desist from committing any criminal offence again failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bonds. (Rajiv Roy, J) Vijay Singh/- U T