Dhamendra Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4589 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-232 Year-2023 Thana- KHODAWANDPUR District- Begusarai ====================================================== Dhamendra Kumar Yadav S/o Ramjit Yadav Resident of village- Chhatanwar, Police Station- Krishnabraham, District- Buxer ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sarvottam Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Sunil Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-03-2026 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Khodawandpur PS Case No. 232 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379 and 411 of IPC. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that petitioner, who was driver of Hyva of the informant, sold five tyres with rim along with two batteries and 200 litres of diesel to Raushan and Gulshan and fled leaving the Hyva at Daulatpur.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that petitioner is driver of Hyva

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4589 of 2026(2) dt.13-03-2026 2/2 of the informant, but on 3-8-2023, the tyre got flat as such he parked the Hyva near Daulatpur cold storage, when the aforesaid articles, as detailed in the FIR, were stolen. It is also submitted that FIR was instituted after a delay of three days. 5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that one Raushan was arrested from whom the sold articles were recovered and he disclosed the name of the petitioner. It is next submitted that investigation in the case is continuing.

6.

Considering the submission made by learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T