Niranjan Kumar @ Niranjan Roy v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.6130 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-495 Year-2025 Thana- MALSALAMI District- Patna ====================================================== Niranjan Kumar @ Niranjan Roy S/o Chanarik Roy Resident of villKaimashikoh, P.S- Chowk, Distt.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anil Chandra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 03-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends arrest in connection with Malsalami P.S. Case No. 495 of 2025, registered under Section 317(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 30(a) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that 60 liters liquor was recovered from scooty.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence. Name of the petitioner has transpired in this case on the basis of confessional statement made by co-accused person and the same has got no evidentiary value. The petitioner has got four

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.6130 of 2026(2) dt.03-02-2026 2/2 criminal antecedents. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that other co-accused has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 26.11.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 80545 of 2025.

5. Learned APP for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner and submitted that co-accused person has confessed the name of the petitioner in the alleged occurrence. It is further submitted that the petitioner bears four criminal antecedents of same nature. Hence, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and criminal antecedent of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer is rejected. However, the petitioner is directed to surrender in the Court below and pray for regular bail. If any such application is filed, the Court below shall consider and dispose of the same on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Rajorshi/- U T