Patna High Court
CR. APP (SJ)/2598/2026 of Vishal Kumar Vs The State of Bihar on 19 August 2026
COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2598 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-388 Year-2025 Thana- FATUA District- Patna ====================================================== Vishal Kumar S/o Ajay Yadav @ Ajay Ray Resident of Village- Dhamaul, P.S - Parsa Bazar (Punpun Bazar),
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.2598 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-388 Year-2025 Thana- FATUA District- Patna ======================================================
Vishal Kumar S/o Ajay Yadav @ Ajay Ray Resident of Village- Dhamaul, P.S
- Parsa Bazar (Punpun Bazar), District - Patna
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar
2.
Rajesh Kumar S/o Krishna Prasad R/o Village - Dhamaul, P.S - Parsa Bazar (Punpun Bazar), District - Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s
:
Mr. Sheo Nandan Pandit, Advocate
For the Respondent/s
:
Mr. Binay Krishna, Special PP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
19-08-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special P.P. for the State, Mr. Binay Krishna.
2. This is an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “SC/ST Act”) against the refusal of prayer for regular bail vide order dated 26.05.2026 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Patna in connection with Fatuha P.S. Case No.388 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 309(6) of the BNS, 2023 as well as Sections 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that from perusal of the FIR, it would manifest that FIR No. is 388 of 2025, in the margin of the fardbayan also, 388 of 2025 is recorded, but then it appears that there is over writing, it is also submitted that it appears that the said over writing does not in any manner indicate that any forgery has been committed and the number of P.S. case recorded on the fardbayan is also 388 of 2025.
4. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, the objection raised by the office is ignored.
5. It is next submitted that appellant is a person with clean antecedent and is in custody since 04.06.2025.
6. At this stage, the learned Special PP submits that from perusal of the allegations as alleged in the FIR, it would manifest that informant who is brother of the deceased (Hariom) alleges that his brother had gone out with Ravi but did not return on 30.05.2025, further he made a call on his mobile on being informed by his mother that his brother had not returned, but then the mobile of the brother was switched off, further on 31.05.2025, he was informed that two injured persons were lying in an unconscious state near Bakipur village at Fatuha, accordingly he reached the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of his brother lying and Ravi who had accompanied him was also found lying in an injured condition and Ravi disclosed that on 30.05.2025 at around 05:00 PM, he along with deceased were driving the motorcycle when appellant made a call to the deceased and accordingly they went to Sampatchak near Parsa Bazar in search for job on daily wages, but appellant kept dodging them and in between 08-09:00 PM, appellant called two unidentified persons and they all started smoking, thereafter, appellant along with the unidentified accused started firing on account of which, Hariom died and he also suffered firearm injury, it is thus submitted that the injured Ravi disclosed to the informant about the occurrence that how his brother died and there is a specific allegation against the appellant of calling two unidentified persons who along with the appellant committed the occurrence of firing leading to death of informant’s brother.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned Special PP for the State based on the allegation as alleged in the FIR.
8. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned Special PP for the State, the Court is not inclined to release the appellant on bail.
9. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands rejected.
Rishabh/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T