Patna High Court – Orders
Alok Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 19 May, 2026
Author: Ajit Kumar
Bench: Ajit Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20213 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-12 Year-2016 Thana- VISHNUPAD District- Gaya
======================================================
Alok Kumar S/O Yogendra Singh @ Jogendra Singh R/O Village - Pakri, P.O-
Fatehpur, P.S- Fatehpur, District- Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Abhay Kumar
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Satya Nand Shukla
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
4 19-05-2026
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in
connection with Vishnupad P.S. Case No.12 of 2016, F.I.R dated
05.02.2016 registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 414 of the Indian Penal
Code.
3. According to prosecution case, in brief, is that a
written report was lodged by Niraj Kumar, who was posted as
an A.S.I. at Vishnupad Police Station. On 05.02.2016, officials
of the technical cell informed the police that an ATM-swapping
gang had arrived at Maranpur More. Acting on the information,
the police kept surveillance over the area and noticed two
persons arriving in a white Scorpio vehicle and behaving
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20213 of 2026(4) dt.19-05-2026
2/5
suspiciously near the ATM. When the police attempted to
apprehend them, one person escaped taking advantage of the
crowd, while the other was caught and disclosed his name as
Rahul Kumar Singh, and identified the absconding accused as
Alok Kumar. Upon search, nine ATM cards were recovered
from the arrested person, who admitted that only two cards
belonged to him and further confessed that money had already
been withdrawn twice from the Maranpur More ATM by
swapping ATM cards.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner is innocent and has been implicated in the
present case by the -accused, namely, Rahul Kumar. It has next
been submitted that the seized articles is in no way connected
with this petitioner and in order to overcome the delay in
approaching this Court for filing anticipatory bail application,
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that for the
allegations levelled in the F.I.R. in the year 2016, the petitioner
has approached this Court very recently came to know with
regard to institution of F.I.R. against him, in which he has been
made an accused while search was being made by the Police.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, by
referring to the judgment rendered in the case of Gursewak
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20213 of 2026(4) dt.19-05-2026
3/5
Singh v. The State of Punjab, Petition for Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) No.11234/2025, submits that if prosecution,
despite there being specific allegation, has never took any
process to nab the accused in the span of four years, hence, in
such event, the accused may not be required to be arrested by
the prosecution and on this premise, learned Senior Counsel
further submits that, in the present case, despite specific
disclosures having been made by the co-accused, the police
have not made any attempt to arrest the petitioner for the last ten
years, which, in itself, is sufficient to demonstrate that no cogent
material was available against the petitioner warranting his
arrest. It has further been submitted that case dairy was called
for and from the same, it appears that the last entry is of
19.04.2026, in which the investigation has not proceeded further
and because of the lack of any incriminating material collected
during investigation, the requirement of arresting this petitioner
has not occasioned to the prosecution.
6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail application.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
that the name of the petitioner has transpired on the basis of
disclosure made by the co-accused, namely, Rahul Kumar who
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20213 of 2026(4) dt.19-05-2026
4/5
has already been extended the privilege of regular bail in the
year 2016 and the seized articles is in no way connected with
the petitioner and from the case dairy, it appears that the last
entry is of 19.04.2026, in which the investigation has not
proceeded further and because of the lack of any incriminating
material collected during investigation, the requirement of
arresting this petitioner has not occasioned to the prosecution.
Accordingly, this Court is inclined to grant the privilege of
anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
8. Let the petitioner, above named, in the event of
his/her arrest or surrender before the Court below within a
period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the order, be
released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
satisfaction of the learned CJM, Gaya, in connection with
Vishnupad P.S. Case No.12 of 2016, subject to the conditions as
laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure / Section 482(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita and with other following conditions:-
(i) one of the bailors should be the family
member/relative/known of the petitioner(s) who shall provide
official document/personal affidavit to show his/her bona fide;
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20213 of 2026(4) dt.19-05-2026
5/5
(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every
date before the Trial Court and failure to do so for two
consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail
cancellation of his/her/their bail bond by the Trial Court itself;
(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or
promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidences,
failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for
cancellation of the bail bonds;
(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any
criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty
to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds.
(Ajit Kumar, J)
sharun/-
U T
