Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Thakur v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8108 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-284 Year-2019 Thana- COMPLAINT CASE - ARWAL DistrictJehanabad ====================================================== 1.
Santosh Kumar @ Santosh Thakur S/o Late Jhalakdeo Thakur @ Late Khalakdeo Thakur Resident of Village-Kaler Tola Paharpur , P.S-Kaler, District-Arwal, Bihar 2.
Ajay Thakur S/o Kavilas Thakur Resident of Village-Kaler Tola Paharpur , P.S-Kaler, District-Arwal, Bihar 3.
Abhay Thakur S/o Ajay Thakur Resident of Village-Kaler Tola Paharpur , P.S-Kaler, District-Arwal, Bihar 4.
Manish Thakur S/o Vinay Thakur Resident of Village-Kaler Tola Paharpur , P.S-Kaler, District-Arwal, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar 2.
Malti Devi D/o Randhir Ram R/o vill - Kaler Tola, Paharpur, P.S.- Kaler, Distt.- Arwal ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Madhura Nand Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 06-03-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioners seek bail in anticipation of their arrest in Complaint Case No.284 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 379, 394, 506/ 34of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The learned A.P.P., at the outset, submits that from perusal of the order impugned, it would manifest that the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8108 of 2025(2) dt.06-03-2025 2/2 learned trial Court had issued summons vide order dated 12.10.2023, but the petitioners chose not to appear thereafter bailable and non-bailable warrant of arrest were issued, but still the petitioners, even at the stage of bailable warrant, chose not to appear and now have approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail. It is thus submitted that a person, who does not obey the Law should not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned A.P.P.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T