Allowed¶25

Ajit Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC18 Apr 2025CR. MISC./77939/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail allowed; video-recording/viral-threat case (voyeurism-type); Sections 376, 509(B) IPC and 66(e), 67(a) IT Act; petitioner not named in FIR; name transpired via tracing of sending number; phone sent for repair allegedly used by co-accused Lokesh Kumar; parity with named accused already granted bail on 01.03.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 8876 of 2024; custody since 23.06.2024; bail bond Rs. 20,000 with two like sureties; A.C.J.M. 1st, Gaya; Mahkar P.S. Case No. 04 of 2023; Patna High Court; CR. MISC. No.77939 of 2024; decided 18-04-2025 by Justice Sourendra Pandey.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail: petitioner to be released on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each, to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M. 1st, Gaya, in connection with Mahkar P.S. Case No. 04 of 2023.

Ajit Kumar Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner — not named in the FIR, whose name transpired only when the number from which the video was sent was traced to him, and whose phone (allegedly sent for repair) was said to have been used by co-accused Lokesh Kumar — should be released on regular bail in connection with Mahkar P.S. Case No. 04 of 2023.

¶14

Court's answer

From a perusal of the FIR, the Court found that the allegation of recording the informant's video and threatening to make it viral was upon co-accused Lokesh Kumar, who had sent the video from the petitioner's phone.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Considering that the named accused Lokesh Kumar had already been granted bail by this Court, and taking into account the period of custody, the Court directed that the petitioner be released on bail on a Rs. 20,000/- bond with two sureties of the like amount each.

¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Sourendra Pandey, J., oral order dated 18-04-2025, Crl. Misc. No.77939 of 2024) granted regular bail to Ajit Kumar in Mahkar P.S. Case No. 04 of 2023 (Gaya), arising under Sections 376 and 509(B) IPC and Sections 66(e) and 67(a) of the I.T. Act. The petitioner was not named in the FIR; the allegations of recording the informant's video during a physical relationship, threatening to make it viral, and sending it were against co-accused Lukesh Kumar @ Lokesh Kumar, and the petitioner's name emerged only when the sending number was traced to him. Counsel submitted that the petitioner's phone, which had gone for repairing, was utilized by the co-accused, with whom the petitioner claimed no connection. Observing from the FIR that the allegation of recording and threatening lay upon the co-accused, and considering that the named accused had already been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench on 01.03.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 8876 of 2024, together with the petitioner's custody since 23.06.2024, the Court ordered release on a bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned A.C.J.M. 1st, Gaya.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.77939 of 2024

¶2

Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2023 Thana- MAHKAR District- Gaya

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Ajit Kumar S/O Vijay Manjhi R/O village - Dholbigha Tola Fajilpur, P.S - Hulasganj, Dist -Jehanabad

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prithivi Raj Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Md. Fahimuddin, APP ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶11

4 18-04-2025

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP

¶13

for the State.

¶14

The petitioner seeks regular bail in connection with

¶15

Mahkar P.S. Case No. 04 of 2023 for offences under Sections 376, 509(B) of I.P.C. and 66 (e) & 67 (a) of the I.T. Act.

¶16

The prosecution case is to the effect that one Lukesh Kumar @ Lokesh Kumar recorded a video of the informant while making physical relation and started threatening to make it viral and had even sent the said video from a particular number.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and the allegation of recording of the video and making it viral was on one Lokesh Kumar. He further submits that his name has transpired after it was found that the number from which the said video was sent

¶18

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77939 of 2024(4) dt.18-04-2025 2/3

¶19

belonged to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that his mobile phone which has gone for repairing was utilized by the co-accused Lokesh Kumar and he has no concern whatsoever with the said co-accused Lokesh Kumar. Learned counsel further submits that the named accused Lokesh Kumar who had threatened the informant of making the video viral and was pressing for making physical relationship around four to five days prior to the lodging of the FIR has been granted the privilege of bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court by order dated 01.03.2024 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 8876 of 2024. Lastly, it has been submitted that petitioner is in custody since 23.06.2024.

¶20

Learned APP for the Stated has opposed the prayer for

¶21

bail.

¶22

From the perusal of the FIR, it is evident that the allegation is upon the co-accused Lokesh Kumar to have recorded the video of the informant and has threatened the informant of making it viral and had sent the video from the phone of the petitioner.

¶23

Considering the fact that the named accused Lokesh Kumar has already been granted bail by this Hon’ble Court as also taking into consideration the period of custody, let the

¶24

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.77939 of 2024(4) dt.18-04-2025 3/3

¶25

petitioner be released on bail furnishing bail bond of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned A.C.J.M. 1^st Gaya in connection with Mahkar P.S. Case No. 04 of 2023.

¶26

(Sourendra Pandey, J)

¶27

Raj Ranjan/- U T

Ajit Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hari Kishore Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Amrendra Pandey Vs the State of Bihar

Suraj Bhan Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Asgar Ali @ Asgar Vs The State of Bihar

Pradeep Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Pradeep Sharma @ Pradip Chaupal Vs The State of Bihar