Gautam Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4437 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-225 Year-2024 Thana- JAGDISHPUR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Gautam Choudhary S/o Bouni Choudhary R/o Nyachak Makhana, P.S.- Jagdishpur, District- Bhagalpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Jha For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad ====================================================== 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 Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No.189 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Section 147, 149, 341, 323, 324, 384, 385, 420, 467, 468, 406, 504, 506 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of five cases and allegation is of recovery of 10 litres of liquor along with three motorcycles from the house of the petitioner. It is next submitted that petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and he came to be implicated based on confessional statement of his wife Chanda Devi. It is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4437 of 2025(2) dt.12-02-2025 2/2 also submitted that petitioner is not the owner of any of the seized vehicle.
4. Learned A.P.P. for the State Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that three stolen motorcycles were recovered from the house of the petitioner along with liquor and the name of the petitioner transpired in the statement of his wife, which amply demonstrates that petitioner is habitual in committing theft of motorcycle.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T