Golu Kumar @ Golu Ray v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.15696 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-134 Year-2025 Thana- Mabby District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Golu Kumar @ Golu Ray S/o- Sri Kedar Ray Vill-Simri, Ps-Malinagar, P.SChakmehsi, Dist- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Ms. Jyoti Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Ajay Kumar No. 2, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 24-03-2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 310(2) of the BNS, 2023
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of two cases and the informant alleges that six named accused came to the informant on 05.10.2025 at 05:20 PM and looted Rs. 4,50,000/- and fled.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR is against unknown and one Chandan was identified based on CCTV footage and was apprehended and he disclosed the name of petitioner as one of an accused who participated in loot. It is further submitted that confessional statement of apprehended
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.15696 of 2026(2) dt.24-03-2026 2/2 accused in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner and submits that no doubt confessional statement does not have any evidentiary value in the eyes of law, but then petitioner has antecedent of two cases and Chandan was identified based on CCTV footage and based on his disclosure, the name of the petitioner transpired. It is next submitted that if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioner may abscond or try to tamper with the evidence, since he has antecedents.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T