Bikash Kumar @ Vikash Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67889 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-63 Year-2020 Thana- SIKANDRA District- Jamui ====================================================== Bikash Kumar @ Vikash Kumar Son of Bishundeo Mistri Resident of Village - Bardih, P.S.- Sikandra, District - Jamui.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Bharat Bhushan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 11-02-2026 Heard Mr. Satya Prakash Parasar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned APP.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Sikandra P.S. Case No. 63 of 2020 for the offence under sections 341, 323, 307, 504, 324 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 26.03.2020 by the informant, Bhairolal Yadav.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that Bishundeo Mistri was creating problem on the agriculture field and upon opposition, the named family members including the petitioner came armed variously and assaulted him as also his wife and sons. This led to the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a case and counter-case, admittedly, there is a land dispute and both the sides have suffered.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67889 of 2025(4) dt.11-02-2026 2/2

5. At this stage, Mr. Bharat Bhushan, learned APP submits that the case is of the year 2020, the petitioner is named in the FIR and years later, the present petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though admittedly, the FIR is of the year 2020, the fact remains that processes under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. were not affected.

7. Learned State Counsel, Mr. Bharat Bhushan, submits that although belatedly, it is now on record that the informant and creator of the FIR, Bhairolal Yadav, is no more.

8. Considering all the aforesaid facts as also that the petitioner has knocked the doors of the Court after more than five years, in that background, it would be appropriate that he seeks bail.

9. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

10. If, however, the petitioner surrenders within four weeks, the concerned Court shall take up the matter and dispose it of preferably on the same day.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U T