Saket Yadav @ Saket Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23640 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-420 Year-2024 Thana- BANMANKHI District- Purnia ====================================================== Saket Yadav @ Saket Kumar S/o Santosh Yadav R/o Vill- Bahmankhi Chakla, P.S.- Banmankhi Dist-Purnia ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Hare Ram Sah For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ram Naresh Ray ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 05-05-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Banmankhi P.S. Case No. 420 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 309(4) of BNS, 2023.

3. As per prosecution case, three miscreants on one Apache motorcycle overtook the informant's motorcycle. It is alleged that they snatched the informant's mobile, Rs. 17,000/- (in cash) and adhar card of informant and his wife and fled away from the place of occurrence.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner bears criminal antecedent of one case of Arms Act which is pending. He further submits that petitioner is not named in FIR and his name has been transpired in this on the confessional statement of co-accused Saroj Kumar Ravi. Except the confessional statement of the said co-accused, there is nothing on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.23640 of 2025(2) dt.05-05-2025 2/2 record to demonstrate the complicity of the present petitioner with the alleged occurrence. Petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence as alleged in the FIR.

5. The learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner by submitting that petitioner bears criminal antecedent of Arms Act and the present case is of Section 309(4) of BNS, 2023 in which the investigation is going on. Hence, he does not deserve bail.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced on behalf of the both sides as well as this fact that petitioner bears criminal antecedent of Arms Act, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected.

7. However, in case petitioner surrenders before the concerned court within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order and seeks regular bail, the concerned court may pass an appropriate order on the day of hearing without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J) alok/- U T