Patna High CourtCR. MISC./22417/2026bail rejected

Nitesh Tiwari v. The State Of Bihar

2026-04-08Mr. Justice Ramesh Chand Malviya2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.22417 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-180 Year-2019 Thana- MINAPUR District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Nitesh Tiwari (M), aged about 33 years, S/O Arun Kumar Tiwari @ Sudama Tiwari, R/o vill.- Paharpur Chak Ahlad, P.S- Sahebganj, Dist.- Muzaffarpur, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA ORAL ORDER 08-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 392, 397 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. As per allegation in the FIR, it is a case of road robbery at the gun point of pistol with an attempt to kill the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He next submits that the name of the petitioner has been figured on the confessional statement of co-accused, namely, Dharamnath

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.22417 of 2026(2) dt.08-04-2026 2/2 Kumar, the petitioner was not arrested at the spot and he has got clean antecedent as stated in para-3 of the petition.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that there is direct involvement for commission of dacoity against the petitioner.

6. On perusal of the first information report and impugned order dated 10.02.2026, it appears that from paras no.01 to 107 of the case diary, the allegation against the petitioner relates to commission of robbery at gun point of pistol with a view to kill him and also appears that process under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C has already been issued against him, so I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) Brajesh Kumar/- U T