Anil Ray @ Anil Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4233 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-439 Year-2024 Thana- MADHAURAH District- Saran ====================================================== Anil Ray @ Anil Kumar Yadav S/O Rajdev Ray @ Rajdev Prasad Yadav Resident of Village- Lerua, P.S- Marhoura, District- Saran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Adarsh Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Surendra Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 12-02-2025

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

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Marhowrah P.S. Case No.439/2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-A), 25(1-AA), 25(1B), (a), 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that he received secret information from his superior that petitioner and Anil indulged in manufacturing of illegal firearms and also indulged in its smuggling hence brick factory of Akhilesh was raided from where unprepared arms in huge quantity was recovered along with machinery for making arms were also seized from the place of occurrence. Further some accused were apprehended along with Akhilesh who disclosed that petitioner fled from the place of occurrence.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4233 of 2025(2) dt.12-02-2025 2/2

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is further submitted that petitioner was on an inimical term with Akhilesh as such he implicated him as petitioner was not returning an amount of Rs.3 lakh which he had taken from Akhilesh.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that in the anticipatory bail application it has not been pleaded as to what the petitioner does for his sustenance. Further it is also submitted that if the petitioner had taken an amount of Rs.3 lakh from a co-accused which he was not returning in that event it amply demonstrates that he was known to the co-accused, as such it is not a fit case for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

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

7. The anticipatory bail application is rejected. (Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T