Patna High CourtCR. MISC./11956/2026bail rejected

Sakil Ahemad @ Tinka v. The State Of Bihar

2026-02-25Mr. Justice R. P. Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11956 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-173 Year-2024 Thana- PRANPUR District- Katihar ====================================================== Sakil Ahemad @ Tinka S/o Irfan Ansari R/o Village- Bastaul, P.S- Pranpur, Dist- Katihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Jitendra Kumar Giri, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Shantanu Kumar, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 25-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Pranpur P.S. Case No. 173 of 2024, instituted for the offences punishable under Section 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The prosecution case, in short, is that, three unknown persons accosted the informant and looted his motorcycle key, cash of Rs. 35,000/- and his mobile phone on the point of pistol.

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 Rohit Kumar and Aniket

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11956 of 2026(2) dt.25-02-2026 2/2 Kumar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that general and omnibus allegation has been made against the petitioner. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has three criminal antecedents.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner. He further submitted that petitioner has committed the alleged offence under well planned manner. Therefore, he does not deserve to be released on anticipatory bail.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as well as considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) manish/- U T