Patna High CourtCR. MISC./83411/2025bail granted

Saurav Kumar @ Sourabh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-01-17Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83411 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2025 Thana- Chakia District- Begusarai ====================================================== Saurav Kumar @ Sourabh Kumar S/o- Navin Singh @ Nabin KUmar VillageBihat, P.S-Chakia, District-Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Amit Anand, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 17-01-2026 Heard Mr. Amit Anand, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks bail, who is in custody since 27.06.2025, in connection with Chakia P.S. Case No. 41 of 2025, F.I.R. dated 26.06.2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 140(2), 127(2) and 3(5) of B.N.S.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25.06.2025 while the informant was travelling by train, the petitioner along with five other co-accused persons abducted the informant from Rajendrapool Station,Begusarai, assaulted him and forcibly demanded a ransom of Rs. 50,000/-. It is further alleged that the petitioner and his associates snatched the informant's silver

2/4 chain, ATM card, I Phone, and by compelling him to disclose the PIN, withdrew Rs. 46,000/- from his Bank Account.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the allegation as alleged in the F.I.R. is false and fabricated and the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the F.I.R. It appears from the F.I.R. and seizure list that the present F.I.R. was instituted only to falsely implicate the petitioner and other co-accused person. Although, there is specific allegation in the F.I.R. and seizure list that Rs.

40,500/-, One Vivo Mobile and one I-Phone 13 have been recovered from other co-accused persons but from perusal of the seizure list, it appears that there is no sign of any of the accused person in the seizure list and no independent witness has also signed in the seizure list only police personnel has signed in the seizure list. He further submits that it appears that the informant has falsely implicated the petitioner in the present case and the police after investigation submitted chargesheet against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody since 27.06.2025.

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

3/4 petitioner.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that no independent witness has signed in the seizure list and even no sign of the petitioner has been obtained in the seizure list, 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 Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Begusarai in connection with Chakia P.S. Case No. 41 of 2025, 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 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

4/4 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