Patna High CourtCR. MISC./21230/2025bail rejected

Ritik Kumar Jha @ Chhotu @ Rohit Jha v. The State Of Bihar

2025-04-23Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.21230 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2024 Thana- SAHARGHAT District- Madhubani ====================================================== Ritik Kumar Jha @ Chhotu @ Rohit Jha S/O Pradip Jha Resident of VillageHarine, Police Station- Harlakhi, Dist -Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bhavesh Kumar Sah, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ganesh Prasad Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 23-04-2025 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable in connection with Saharghat P.S. Case No.36 of 2024 under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the prosecution, the FIR has been lodged against 3 named accused persons including the petitioner with allegation that they stopped the motorcycle of the informant and snatched his mobile, motorcycle and cash of Rs.35,000/- from his pocket.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. He submits that petitioner's name has figured

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.21230 of 2025(2) dt.23-04-2025 2/2 in this case by virtue of confessional statement of co-accused persons. He further submits that general and omnibus allegation has been made against the petitioner.

5. Learned Counsel also submits that antecedent of the petitioner is not clean and there are 2 criminal cases pending against the petitioner in which he is on bail in both cases.

6. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that antecedent of the petitioner is not clean. There are 2 criminal cases pending against him.

7. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, therefore the bail application of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

8. However, trial court is directed to consider the regular bail application of the petitioner, if he surrenders within 4 weeks from today and prays for regular bail, then trial court shall pass order without being prejudice of the present order preferably on the same day.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U T