Supreme Court directs its registry to locate the counter affidavit of State of Bihar

In Kumar Vikrant Mohan @ Chiku vs. The State Of Bihar (2025), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti has directed its Registry to locate the counter affidavit of State of Bihar, the respondent after it submitted that it had filed the counter affidavit but the same is not on record. The order dated August 19, 2025 reads:''2. Registry is directed to same and place it on record, both physically and digitally.'' The case arose out of impugned a 3-page long order dated February 25, 2025 in Kumar Vikrant Mohan @ Chiku vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (2025) passed by Justice Rajiv Roy of the Patna High Court.  

The petitioner had approached the High Court because he was in judicial custody in connection with Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 358 of 2020, for the offence pun shable under Section 398 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act lodged on July 2, 2020. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that after closing his Jewellery shop (“Anant Alankar Jewellers”) he was returning in his vehicle and reached near Professor Colony when the accused intercepted, one of them open fired and tried to snatched the bag. He resisted and did not allow them to take away the bag and in the meantime the police arrived, opening fire, the accused escaped. However, the police managed to caught hold of Rakesh Kumar @ Pintu @ Fauji Kumar. 

The petitioner's counsel submitted that his name came out in the confessional statement of Rakesh Kumar@ Pintu @ Fauji Kumar and only because of criminal antecedent, the police implicated the petitioner. Further Suraj Kumar was granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated May 5, 2022 passed in Cr. Miscellaneous No. 59933 of 2021. The APP opposed the prayer and submits that a perusal of the F.I.R. would show that it way back to the year 2020. Further, so far as bail granted to the Suraj is concerned, that relates to year 2022 and the said accused Suraj Kumar was in judicial custody since the year 2021 itself. So far as this petitioner is concerned, his name cropped up in the year 2021, evaded arrest for four years and only thereafter police managed to arrest him recently. Considering the allegation that has come, he does not deserve bail.

Justice Roy's order reads:''this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that not only the petitioner has criminal antecedent but he also evaded arrest for four long years and it was only after the police took him to custody and he is jail since 03.10.2024. 7. In that background, for the present, this Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of bail, which is accordingly, rejected.''