Nishant Kumar @ Abhijit Raj v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.8029 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-588 Year-2023 Thana- NAGAR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Nishant Kumar @ Abhijit Raj Son of Sudhir Kumar @ Loha Singh Resident of village - Ward No.- 31, Lodipur, Hajipur, P.S.- Town, District - Vaishali. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Vinay Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Syed Ehteshamuddin ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 02-07-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State along with learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code & Section 27 of the Arms Act.
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant at the outset submits that similarly situated co-accused Vijay Rai had approached this court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 63762/2024 and the same was rejected by a learned coordinate Bench by an order dated 11.09.2024. It is next submitted that thereafter similarly situated co-accused Loha Singh @ Sudhir Kumar also approached this court seeking regular bail by filing Cr. Misc. No. 14777/2024 and the same came to be rejected by an order dated 12.03.2024. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant thus submits that when regular bail of Loha Singh
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.8029 of 2025(5) dt.02-07-2025 2/2 @ Sudhir Kumar was rejected by this court and thereafter the anticipatory bail of Vijay Rai was also rejected, in that event, the petitioner who is similarly situated accused is not entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not in a position to rebut the said submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the order dated 11.09.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 63762/2024 and order dated 12.03.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 14777/2024, 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.
7. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that Loha Singh @ Sudhir Kumar had again approached this court by filing Cr. Misc. No.82336/2024 and the same was allowed by an order dated 20.06.2025. (Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T