Chandan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10388 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-19 Year-2025 Thana- LAURIA District- West Champaran ====================================================== Chandan Kumar S/O Paras Chaudhary R/O Village- Tumkadiya, P.S- Bairiya, Distt.- West Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ajeet Kumar Bhawdwaj, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shyam Kumar Singh, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 13-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Lauriya P.S. Case No. 19 of 2025, instituted for the offences under Sections 334(1), 303(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

3. Prosecution case, in short, is that five unknown miscreants committed theft in the shop of the informant after breaking open the shutter and committed theft of 160 bags of rice amounting to Rs. 1,53,000/-.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. The name of the petitioner transpired in this case on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Tepeshwar Choudhary. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that general and omnibus allegation has been made against the petitioner. No

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10388 of 2026(2) dt.13-02-2026 2/2 specific overt act is alleged against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in this case due to dirty party politics and previous enmity with the apprehended co-accused. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that other co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail by this Bench vide order dated 04.02.2026 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 7357 of 2026. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has one criminal antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case taking into account the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, in my view, this is not a fit case for anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is, hereby, rejected.

8. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the learned court below within a period of six weeks from today and prays for regular bail, the same shall be disposed of on its own merit without being prejudiced by this order. (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) manish/- U T