Alok Kumar Ray @ Alok Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16671 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-31 Year-2025 Thana- SAMHO District- Begusarai ====================================================== Alok Kumar Ray @ Alok Kumar S/O Late Shankar Ray Resident of VillageAkbarpur Chalis, Post- Akbarpur, Akbarpur, Police Station- Chanpura, District- Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sarvottam Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 06-05-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with Samho P.S. Case No. 31 of 2025 lodged on 14.09.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 305, 331(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending in the Court of SubJudge IV cum A.C.J.M.-IV, Begusarai.

3. As per the prosecution, FIR has been lodged against the sole petitioner. The allegation in the FIR is that on 13.09.2025 at about 04.30 A.M., some accused persons came at the house of the informant and looted Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash. Subsequently, the petitioner was identified in the CCTV footage.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16671 of 2026(3) dt.06-05-2026 2/2 petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. Counsel submits that the petitioner and the informant, both are adjacent neighbours and only on the basis of suspicion, petitioner's name has figured in this case. He submits that since, the petitioner is the adjacent neighbour, so automatically, it is natural that he has been figured in the CCTV footage. Counsel submits that on previous occasion, case diary has been called for. He further submits that the petitioner has clean antecedent and he is ready to fulfill all the conditions whatsoever shall be imposed upon him.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has been identified in the CCTV footage and in the case diary also, his involvement has come.

6. As such, in the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands rejected. (Dr. Anshuman, J) Divyansh/- U T