Chandan Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

====================================================== Lalkrishna Adwani @ Chhotu Kumar Son of Raj Mangal Prasad Resident of village- Bithalpur, Ps- and Dist- Jamui

¶13

... ... Petitioner/s

¶14

Versus

¶15

The State of Bihar

¶16

... ... Opposite Party/s

¶17

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

¶18

Appearance : (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 20322 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP (In CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 22636 of 2026) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Abhay Kumar Roy, APP

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

3 07-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

The petitioners have preferred this application for

¶24

grant of regular bail in connection with Malaypur P.S. Case no. 4 of 2026 registered under sections 310(2), 126(2), 109, 311, 317(2) and 317(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and sections 25(1-B)(a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act, 1959.

¶25

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20322 of 2026(3) dt.07-05-2026 2/3

¶26

As per the prosecution case, six accused persons on two motorcycles stopped the motorcycle of the informant and looted him of a total amount of about Rs.50 Lacs besides other articles as mentioned in the FIR.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner Chandan Kumar submits that the FIR was registered against unknown. The petitioner was falsely implicated in the case in the statement of co-accused Ravi Thatera recorded in course of investigation. No incriminating article has been recovered from the petitioner’s possession and the cash to the tune of Rs.20,000/- recovered is in no way connected with the crime. The petitioner has not been put on TI Parade inspite of being in custody since 14.1.2026 and chargesheet has been submitted in the case.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Lalkrishna Adwani submits that this petitioner was also falsely implicated in the case in course of investigation in the statement of a co-accused Ravi Thatera. No incriminating article has been recovered from the petitioner's possession and the alleged recovery of cash to the tune of Rs. 9,500/- belongs to this petitioner. It is in no way connected with the loot. The petitioner has not been put on TI Parade inspite of being in custody since 14.1.2026 and chargesheet has been submitted in the case.

¶29

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20322 of 2026(3) dt.07-05-2026 3/3

¶30

The application for bail is opposed by learned APP

¶31

for the State.

¶32

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioners in the FIR, the material that has transpired in course of investigation, the petitioners not having been put on TI Parade inspite of being in custody since 14.1.2026 and investigation in the case having concluded, the Court directs that both the petitioners be enlarged on bail in connection with Malaypur P.S. Case no. 4 of 2026 on each of them furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamui.

¶33

(Partha Sarthy, J)

¶34

sauravkrsinha/-

¶35

U T

Chandan Kumar v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandan 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sidhnath Kumar @ Sidhanat Vs The State of Bihar

Sujay Kumar @ Sushant Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Pramod Kumar @ Chhotu Vs The State of Bihar

Vijay Murmu Vs The State of Bihar

Vikash Kumar @ Bikash Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Vishal Kumar @ Munna Kumar @ Munna Vs The State of Bihar