Ankit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11537 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-434 Year-2024 Thana- MOTIHARI TOWN District- East Champaran ====================================================== Ankit Kumar S/O Rakesh Singh R/O Village- Mathurapur, P.S- Pipra, DisttEast Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Madhuri Lata, APP.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 05-03-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with Motihari Town P.S. Case No. 434 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable u/s 309(4) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per prosecution case, three unknown persons are said to have committed loot of Rs. 8,00,000/- from one Ajay Kumar. They also opened firing upon him, as a result, he sustained gunshot injury.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. No such occurrence as alleged has ever taken place. No incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious physical possession of the petitioner. He has falsely been implicated in this case due to

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.11537 of 2025(2) dt.05-03-2025 2/2 ulterior motive. The allegation levelled against the petitioner is totally false and based on concocted facts. Nothing specific has been attributed against him. He is not named in the FIR, but during the course of investigation, co-accused Subhash Kumar was arrested and he confessed his own involvement as well as involvement of the petitioner in commission of the alleged occurrence. There is nothing on record to indicate the complicity of the petitioner barring the confessional statement of the apprehended person which has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner has one criminal antecedent and he has been languishing in custody since 22.11.2024.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

7. Accordingly, the application stands dismissed.

8. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) divyanshi/- U T