Patna High Court – Orders
Anoop Kumar Shrivastava @ Anup Kumar … vs The State Of Bihar on 26 May, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.436 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-574 Year-2021 Thana- BEUR District- Patna
======================================================
1. Anoop Kumar Shrivastava @ Anup Kumar Srivastav @ Pankaj Kumar
Shrivastava @ Pankaj Kumar Srivastava Son of Neel Mani Srivastav
village- Kanakpur, Pragatipur, P.S-Beur, dist- Patna P/A- Shitalpur, ps-
Dighwara, Dist- chhapra
2. Adarsh Kumar Shrivastava @ Adarsh Kumar Srivastav Son of Shiv Kumar
Srivastav village- Kanakpur, Pragatipur, P.S-Beur, dist- Patna P/A- Shitalpur,
ps- Dighwara, Dist- chhapra
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Kumar Prabhakar, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Rajdeep, Advocate
Mr. Pawan Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Informant : Mr. Dhirendra Nath Jha, Adv
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Chandra Sen Prasad Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOURENDRA PANDEY
ORAL ORDER
5 26-05-2025
Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and
learned counsel for the Informant as well as learned APP for the
State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in connection with Beur
P.S. Case No. 574 of 2021 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 302, 341, 325 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the FIR, the informant has alleged that the
accused persons are stated to have sprinkled petrol over his son
on 18.12.2021 and burnt him, which resulted in his death in
P.M.C.H on 25.12.2021. It has further been alleged by the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.436 of 2025(5) dt.26-05-2025
2/7
informant that his son Vikas used to work in a mobile shop of
the accused persons and the accused persons had burned his son
because of the dispute over the payment of his salary of three
months.
4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. N.K. Agrawal appearing
on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the present case is
an out and out false case against the petitioners against whom an
allegation of sprinkling petrol on the son of the informant and
setting him on fire has been leveled on a petty dispute of
payment of his salary of three months that too after 7 days delay
of the occurrence. It has further been submitted by the learned
senior counsel that during the course of investigation, it has
come that the petitioner No.2 had never left his shop on the
fateful day and moreover, from the CCTV footage it is also clear
that the talks between the petitioner and the son of the informant
was very normal and there could not be seen any heated
arguments or discussion taking place between them. It has also
been submitted by the learned senior counsel that it has come
during the course of investigation through footage of CCTV that
Vikas, the deceased, was seen taking petrol and thereafter,
leaving the petrol pump and going on an auto. It has further
been submitted that one of the material witness/independent
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.436 of 2025(5) dt.26-05-2025
3/7
witness, namely, Aryan Kumar, who had called on the mobile of
the Petitioner No. 2 after the occurrence and had established the
fact that the deceased was in a semi burnt stage had requested to
call on the mobile number of the petitioner No. 2 to save his
life. It has further been submitted that during the course of
investigation several witnesses have been examined by the
police, who have stated that the petitioner had come to one
Jagdamba Hospital at 3 PM and the Manager has stated that he
was informed that the said injured Vikas Kumar had received
burn injuries on account of gas cylinder further when he was
taken to Trideo Hospital, the Manager there was informed that
he had received the burn injuries on his own and when finally
the injured was taken to PMCH, the HOD of PMCH during
investigation has stated that while admitting the patient he was
informed that he got burnt while making tea. The learned senior
counsel has stated that there are material contradictions in the
statement of the witnesses, as also the informant himself, who
has changed the version of his statement from FIR to his
restatement. The learned senior counsel has submitted that the
CDR collected during the course of investigation also does not
prove the complicity of the petitioners in the present case and
looking into the material contradictions and the evidence
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.436 of 2025(5) dt.26-05-2025
4/7
collected during the course of investigation, the IO did not find
any material against the petitioners and hence had submitted a
final form on 26. 11. 2022 against the petitioners.
5. The learned Senior Counsel, Mr. N. K. Agrawal has
thus, summarized his submissions to the effect that the delay in
lodging of the FIR has not been explained as the occurrence had
taken place on 18.12. 2021 and the FIR was lodged on 26.12.
2021. He has also submitted that there is contradictory statement
of the informant in the FIR. vis-a-vis. his restatement by which
the informant has tried to fill up the lacuna and the witnesses
who had seen the deceased Vikas Kumar in the burnt condition
and their statements also prove that the petitioners were not
present at the place of occurrence. It has further been submitted
that from the CCTV footage it is clear that the deceased Vikas
Kumar had taken petrol from a petrol pump and was seen going
on a tempo and there were three different versions of the cause
of burn received by the son of the informant as has come during
the course of investigation and finally because of the same, final
form was submitted. Learned senior counsel thus, has submitted
that in view of the clean antecedent of the petitioners and taking
into account that the motive for such incident is a meager
payment of three months’ salary, which too is falsified from
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.436 of 2025(5) dt.26-05-2025
5/7
perusal of the screenshot of Whats App chat between the
petitioner and one Sandeep Shrivastava, which would suffice
that even the salaries of November had been paid to the
deceased on 21.2.2021 and therefore, the present case is an out
and out false and concocted case lodged against the petitioners
to coerce them into giving some money to the informant. It has
lastly been submitted that the petitioners carry clean antecedent
and are in custody since 12.11.2024.
6. Sri Dhirendra Nath Jha, the learned counsel for the
informant has submitted that the petitioners are the named
accused in this case, and they should not be released on bail
because there is specific allegations of sprinkling petrol upon
the deceased Vikas Kumar and then burning him to death. The
learned counsel for the informant has further submitted that the
witness has supported the factum of the son of the informant
receiving burn injuries and the petitioners being involved and
has referred to para 6,7, 24 and 33 of the case diary, which
supports his contention. It has further been submitted that
despite the submission of final form, the learned court below
has taken cognizance and the revision preferred against the said
order of cognizance before this Hon’ble court, has also been
dismissed. The Learned counsel for the informant has further
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.436 of 2025(5) dt.26-05-2025
6/7
submitted that the anticipatory bail applications preferred by the
petitioners before this Hon’ble court has been rejected twice and
as such, the present application being devoid of any merit
should be dismissed. The learned counsel for the informant has
also submitted that the statement of the victim was deliberately
not taken by the police and thereby the police in connivance
with the petitioners did not allow the correct fact to come
forward. It has been submitted that there being enough evidence
against the petitioners, they should not be enlarged on bail.
7. The learned APP for the State has supported the
arguments forwarded by the learned counsel for the informant
and has added that the petitioners being directly involved and
specifically named in the present case, should not be released on
bail.
8. Considering the aforesaid submissions made by
the parties and taking into account that during the course of
investigation, there is material contradictions in the statement of
the witnesses as also the fact that the CCTV footage and the
CDR reports does not establish the story stated by the informant
and also taking into account the fact that the petitioners carry
clean antecedent, let the above named petitioners be released on
bail on each of them furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten
thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.436 of 2025(5) dt.26-05-2025
7/7
satisfaction of learned J.M.F.C, Patna in connection with Beur P.S.
Case No. 574 of 2021 subject to the following conditions :
a. One of the bailors of the petitioners shall be
there close relative.
b. The petitioners shall remain physically
present in Court on each date of the trial.
c. In case of absence on two consecutive
dates, or in violation of the terms of the bail and if
the prosecution is found involvement of the
petitioner in similar nature of offence, the bail
bond of the petitioner will be liable to be canceled
by the Court concerned.
d. And further condition that the court below
shall verify the criminal antecedent of the
petitioners and in case at any stage it is found that
the petitioners have concealed their criminal
antecedent, the court below shall take step for
cancellation of bail bond of the petitioners.
However, the acceptance of bail bonds in terms of
the above-mentioned order shall not be delayed for
purpose of or in the name of verification.
(Sourendra Pandey, J)
Jyoti
U T