Arjun Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8026 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-300 Year-2022 Thana- MADANPUR District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Arjun Yadav S/O Ram Kishun Yadav Resident of Village- Naugarh, P.SAmas, District- Gaya (Bihar). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Binod Kumar Pandey For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anil Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 13-05-2025

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Madanpur Police Station Case No. 300 of 2022, dated 12.06.2022, disclosing offences punishable under Sections 341/447/385/387/435/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The First Information Report has been registered against three named and five unknown criminals. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that five unknown miscreants came to the brick kiln of the informant and tried to put on fire the JCB and tractors parked there. While fleeing away, the miscreants left the parcha of TPC, having mobile number. It has further been

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8026 of 2025(3) dt.13-05-2025 2/3 alleged in the First Information Report that in the conspiracy, co-accused Subodh Yadav and Renu Devi are involved inasmuch as two months prior to the occurrence, naxelite Subodh Yadav of TPC demanded 6000 bricks without money, which was denied by the informant.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence in the manner alleged. He further submits that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent and he is not named in the First Information Report. He next submits that the name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of co-accused Renu Devi, who was arrested in connection with this case on 13.06.2022, and co-accused Renu Devi has not only confessed her guilt, but has also disclosed the name of the petitioner and others, who went to the brick kiln of the informant and tried to put on fire the JCB and tractors parked there.

5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned and have perused the material available on record, including the impugned order.

6. From perusal of the case diary and the impugned order, it transpires that the co-accused Renu Devi, in her

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8026 of 2025(3) dt.13-05-2025 3/3 confessional statement, has disclosed the active involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence.

7. Considering the above, I do not find any reason to differ with the findings arrived at by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, inasmuch as the case is under investigation, wherein the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary based upon the material collected by the police during course of investigation. As such, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

8. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √ T √