Aniket Yadav @ Aniket Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2913 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-62 Year-2021 Thana- MADHUBAN District- East Champaran ====================================================== Aniket Yadav @ Aniket Kumar, S/o- Awadhesh Kumar @ Awadhesh Rai, R/o- Ram Balli Ray Path, Shiv Nagar, Ps- Ahiyapur, Dist- Muzaffarpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Sunil Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Yogendra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 19-03-2025 Heard Mr. Sunil Prasad Singh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Madhuban P.S. Case No. 62 of 2021, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 399, 402 and 414 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25(1-b)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act and Sections 20 and 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
3. On a tip off assemblage of miscreants planning for robbery the police conducted raid and apprehended three persons. The apprehended persons disclosed the name of their accomplice. In course of search various incriminating materials including 1.080 kilogram Charas like substance and country made pistol were recovered.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2913 of 2025(2) dt.19-03-2025 2/3
4. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner was neither apprehended, nor his name has been disclosed by the apprehended person. During the course of investigation, one of the apprehended person Raja Singh @ Babu Saheb disclosed the name of some of the accused persons and when the police apprehended those persons, they disclosed the name of the petitioner. Save and except the disclosure made by the person whose name was disclosed by the apprehended person, there is no material. The co-accused persons who were apprehended at the spot, they have been accorded the privilege of regular bail by this Court.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State opposed the pre-arrest bail application and submits that apart from the petitioner bears two criminal antecedent, the name of the petitioner has surfaced during the investigation on the disclosure made by the co-accused person.
6. Regard being had to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and considering the materials available on record, specially the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, this Court is not acceded to the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, however if the petitioner surrenders within a period
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.2913 of 2025(2) dt.19-03-2025 3/3 of four weeks from today, the learned jurisdictional Court shall consider the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner without being prejudice by the order of this Court.
(Harish Kumar, J) supratim/- U T