Pankaj Kumar @ Guddu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23046 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-152 Year-2020 Thana- PIRO District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Pankaj Kumar @ Guddu Kumar Son of Fudeena Singh @ Fudena Kahar Resident of Village - Hardiya, P.S.- Piro, District - Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Raju Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr. Pronoti Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 02-05-2025
1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Piro Police Station Case No. 152 of 2020, disclosing offences under Sections 394 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. As per the prosecution case, the informant, Upendra Kumar, an employee of VAUA Finary Pvt. Ltd., was traveling with a colleague when three unknown perosn on a motorcycle intercepted them near Nonar Mahadev Hatta. One of the miscreants pointed a pistol at the informant and robbed them of Rs. 25,000, two mobile phones, and the bike key.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence in the manner
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23046 of 2025(2) dt.02-05-2025 2/2 alleged. Petitioner has no knowledge about the alleged occurrence and he has no concern with the alleged occurrence. Petitioner is not named in the FIR. Petitioner's name has transpired on the confessional statement of co-accused Suraj due to previous enmity. Nothing incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner.
5. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the nature of allegation and the fact that confessional statement of the coaccused may be the basis for further investigation for which custodial interrogation of the petitioner may be necessary, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail.
6. This application is, accordingly, rejected. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) HarshPandey/- U T