In Saurav Kumar @ Saurav & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran passed a 1-page long order dated October 14, 2026, wherein, it observed: "....we are of the view that we should ask the Investigating Officer to personally remain present before this Court as we want to put few questions. 3. Post this matter on 16-10-2026 on top of the Board." Niraj Kumar is the Investigating Officer in Shastrinagar P.S. Case No. 116 of 2023.
In this very related case, in Abhijeet Raj @ Abhijeet Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Satyavrat Verma has passed a 6-page long order dated March 18, 2026, wherein, he granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. In his order Justice Verma has recorded that "the Investigating Officer was cross-examined who stated that he had seen the CCTV footage but the CCTV Camera was of low quality in which three bikes were visible, people were coming but faces were not clearly visible which amply demonstrates that the petitioner was not identified based on the CCTV footage." This was in connection with Shastri Nagar PS Case No. 116 of 2023, registered on January 30, 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act by Vaidnath Sah, the informant who is grandfather of the deceased. The offence was committed near Durga Mandir, Sheikhpura, Patna at 8 PM on January 30, 2023.
In Saurav Kumar @ Saurav & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Satyavrat Verma passed a 4-page long order dated August 14, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is in complete agreement with the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. for the State and, thus, the second anticipatory bail application is dismissed in connection with Shastrinagar P.S. Case No. 116 of 2023 pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IX, Patna/Successor Court with a cost of Rs.10,000/- which the petitioners or the deponent of the case shall deposit with the Legal Aid of the Patna High Court."
A.P.P. for the State also submitted that since name of the petitioners transpired based in the confessional statement of apprehended accused and the case is of killing of the grandson of the informant, as such, the case requires investigation and interrogation of the accused persons. It was further submitted that no doubt, confessional statement in police custody does not have any evidentiary value in the eye of law but then for the purposes of investigation and interrogation the police can use the confessional statement for corroboration. It was next submitted that from perusal of the second anticipatory bail application, it would manifest that the same has been filed not on grounds of changed circumstances but the order rejecting the anticipatory bail application is being assailed on merits. It is, thus, submitted that if petitioners were aggrieved by the order rejecting their anticipatory bail application, in that event, they could have moved before the Supreme Court. It was also submitted that the case is of the year 2023 and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against the petitioner and while rejecting the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner by order dated 17.02.2026 in Cr. Misc. No. 83768 of 2025, the fact that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued was also taken into consideration.
The petitioners had approached the High Court apprehending their arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that this is the second anticipatory bail application of the petitioners. It is further submitted that petitioners had earlier moved the High Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 83768 of 2025 and the same came to be rejected by an order dated February 17, 2026. It was next submitted that Anand Kumar and Abhijeet Raj @ Abhijeet Kumar, who are named in the FIR, have been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by this Court but then the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners and confessional statement in police custody does not have any evidentiary value, stands rejected, though they are not named in the FIR on which Chandra Bhushan Prasad, A.P.P. submitted that Abhijeet Raj @ Abhijeet Kumar, who is named accused in the FIR, was granted the privilege of anticipatory bail for the reason recorded in the order dated March 18, 2026 in Cr. Misc. No. 14308 of 2026. It was also submitted that even Anand Kumar, who is named in the FIR, was also granted the privilege of anticipatory bail for reasons recorded in the order dated July 11, 2023 in Cr. Misc. No. 22117 of 2023. It was also submitted that as far as petitioners are concerned, though they are not named in the FIR but then their names transpired in the case based on the confessional statement of apprehended accused, who were arrested, during the course of investigation by the police, finding their involvement in the occurrence of killing of the grandson of the informant. It was also submitted that with respect to Abhijeet Raj @ Abhijeet Kumar, the order dated March 18, 2026 recorded that he is a resident of Bihta whereas in the FIR, the accused, namely, Abhijeet Kumar was a resident of Shivpuri and the police without investigating the said aspect in a mechanical manner was after him and the said facts stand recorded in detail in the order dated 18.03.2026. It was also submitted that Anand Kumar, who was granted the privilege of anticipatory bail, was granted the said privilege for the reason that the apprehended accused, whose involvement was found in the occurrence, had not named him, it was also submitted that the informant of the case is not an eyewitness to the occurrence, as such, Abhijeet Raj @ Abhijeet Kumar and Anand Kumar came to be implicated in the FIR based on suspicion.
Prior to this in Saurav Kumar @ Saurav & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar (2026), vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Satyavrat Verma passed a 2-page long order dated March 18, 2026, wherein, he refused anticipatory bail. The petitioners had approached the High Court apprehending their arrest in connection with Shastri Nagar PS Case No. 116 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The senior counsel for the petitioners had submitted that petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant alleged that accused persons along with some unknown accused shot his grandson near a Chowmein shop leading to his death. He also submitted that Anand Kumar Singh @ Anand had approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc No. 22117 of 2023 and the same came to be allowed by an order dated July 11, 2023 but then fairly submitted that the case of the petitioners was not similar to the case of Anand as name of the petitioners transpired in the confessional statement of apprehended accused in police custody but then name of Anand was not disclosed in the confessional statement of apprehended accused. It was also fairly submitted that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued. The A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.
In a related case in Abhijeet Raj @ Abhijeet Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2026), Justice Satyavrat Verma passed a 6-page long order dated March 18, 2026, wherein, he granted anticipatory bail.
Justice Verma has recorded that the submission of the petitioner's counsel that petitioner was a person with clean antecedent and was a young boy aged about 23 years. But the informant has alleged that petitioner along with five named accused persons and some unknown accused shot his grandson near the Chowmin Shop leading to his death. The senior counsel submitted that from perusal of the allegation as alleged in the FIR, it would be manifest that informant is grandfather of the deceased and he alleged that his grandson was shot dead by the accused persons but he is not an eyewitness to the occurence. The FIR itself manifests that the public disclosed the name of the assailants who committed the occurrence of murder. Abhijeet Kumar, the resident of Shivpuri, is an accused in the FIR by name but then the parentage of Abhijeet Kumar is not dislcosed in the FIR. It was submitted that the name of the petitioner is Abhijeet Raj @Abhijeet Kumar and not Abhijeet Kumar who is son of Late Ajay Kumar Singh and is resident of Surya Mandir Road Srirampur, Sirirampur, Bihta, Police Station Bihta, Patna. It was also submitted that petitioner was not even aware that an FIR was instituted in which the police without investigating the case in its correct perspective is looking for the petitioner. It was also submitted that during the course of investigation Aman, Shivji and Avinash were arrested and from perusal of their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it would be manifest that they have named one Abhijeet Kumar but have not dislcosed the parentage and added that he was a resident of Shivpuri. It was submitted that even the apprehended accused have not dislcosed that Abhijeet Kumar who was involved in the occurrence is a resident of Bihta. It was submitted that during the course of investigation, no material transpired even to remotely connect the petitioner with the offence on the ground that he is a resident of Shivpuri in the district of Patna. It was also submitted that during the course of investigation, it has come that bystanders from the CCTV footage had identified the assailants of the deceased and the petitioner was also identified. It was further submitted that if what has come during the course of investigation that petitioner was identified based on CCTV footage by bystanders in that event definitely the case is not for anticipatory bail but then it was submitted that Shivji was arrested and was convicted by the trial court by judgment dated September 4, 2025 in a case of 2023. It was next submitted that in the trial, the Investigating Officer was cross-examined who stated that he had seen the CCTV footage but the CCTV Camera was of low quality in which three bikes were visible, people were coming but faces were not clearly visible which amply demonstrates that the petitioner was not identified based on the CCTV footage. It was also submitted that the informant of the case was also cross-examined in the trial of Shivji and dislcosed that he had identified the assailant of his grandson but was not knowing his name but in the trial he identified Shivji as the assailant and also stated that he had not seen any other accused persons. It is also submitted that petitioner is a student and is pursuing his B.Tech. (Computer Science) from Sharda University, Greater Noida.
No comments:
Post a Comment