Suresh Rajvanshi @ Suresh Rajbanshi v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9628 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-406 Year-2024 Thana- RAJGIR District- Nalanda ====================================================== 1.

SURESH RAJVANSHI @ SURESH RAJBANSHI S/O LATE GUDAR RAJVANSHI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KONARK NAGAR, P.S.- RAJGIR, DISTRICT- NALANDA.

2.

PRAHLAD RAJVANSHI S/O SURESH RAJVANSHI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- KONARK NAGAR, P.S.- RAJGIR, DISTRICT- NALANDA. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Krishna Deo Raj For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pawan Kumar Chaurasia ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 16-09-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Rajgir P.S. Case No. 406 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1)/3(5) of BNS.

3. As per allegation, when the deceased Vinod Prasad was coming from market with his daughter Sinku Devi, the named accused persons including the petitioners and three unknown persons started snatching money from Vinod Prasad. On protest, they badly assaulted him. Vinod Prasad died at PMCH in course of treatment.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.9628 of 2025(4) dt.16-09-2025 2/2 submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have falsely been implicated in this case. The deceased died after four days of the occurrence. There is delay of six days in lodging of the FIR. The allegation is general and omnibus.

5. There is allegation against the petitioners that they, along with other accused persons, assaulted the deceased, who died in course of treatment. The daughter of the deceased Sinku Devi was also with him and she has corroborated the allegation in paragraph no.10 of the case diary. A number of injuries have been found on the dead body, according to the post-mortem report.

6. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, the petitioners do not deserve the privileges for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) kundan/- U T