Bijendra Kumar @ Bijendra Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.423 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-152 Year-2024 Thana- LALGANJ District- Vaishali ====================================================== 1.

Bijendra Kumar @ Bijendra Rai S/O Rambabu Ray R/O village - Sararia @ Sarariya , P.S- Lalganj , District- Vaishali 2.

Shrawan Kumar S/O Rambabu Ray R/O village - Sararia @ Sarariya , P.SLalganj , District- Vaishali ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr.Hemant Kumar For the Respondent/s :

Ms.Usha Kumari 1, Spl. PP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 09-09-2025 1.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Spl. P.P. for the State, Ms. Usha Kumari No. 1. 2.

This is an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "SC/ST Act") against the refusal of prayer for anticipatory bail vide order dated 10-9-2024 passed by the learned Exclusive Special Court S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, Vaishali at Hajipur in connection with Lalganj P.S. Case No. 152 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 302, 120B, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Sections 3(2) (V)(va) of the SC/ST Act.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are persons with clean antecedent. It is next submitted that

Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.423 of 2025(3) dt.09-09-2025 2/2 the informant alleges that his son was missing since 6-6-2024 and his mobile number 6287106210 was switched off, accordingly the FIR was instituted.

4.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that FIR was against unknown and during the course of investigation, one Aarti Kumari was arrested, who disclosed the name of the appellants. It is next submitted that confessional statement of apprehended accused in police custody does not have any evidentiary value. It is also submitted that appellants were not known to the deceased.

5.

The learned Spl. PP opposes the appeal and submits that though FIR was against unknown but then during the course of investigation, Aarti was apprehended, who disclosed the name of the appellants that they were involved in the occurrence. It is further submitted that investigation in the case is continuing. 6.

Considering the submission made by the learned Spl. PP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the appellants.

7.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T