Bhulla Kumar Singh @ Angrej @ Aman Kumar Singh @ Bhulla Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.26727 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-281 Year-2019 Thana- RAJNAGAR District- Madhubani ====================================================== Bhulla Kumar Singh @ Angrej @ Aman Kumar Singh @ Bhulla Kumar Son of Sanjay Pratap Singh @ Sanjay Kumar Singh Resident of Village - Bharan Navtol, P.S.- Bhairab Asthan, District - Madhubani ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Gopal Jha, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bharat Bhushan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL ORDER 28-04-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The accused-petitioner, named in the F.I.R., is apprehending his arrest in connection with Rajnagar P.S. Case No. 281 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the I.P.C. and sections 25(1-B)a, 26, 35 of the Arms Act.

3. Allegation against petitioner is to involve in preparation for dacoity along with other co-accused persons.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that nothing incriminating recovered from possession of the petitioner and, therefore, he cannot be said to be involved in preparation for dacoity. It is submitted that name of the petitioner transpired on the basis of disclosure

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.26727 of 2026(2) dt.28-04-2026 2/2 made by apprehended co-accused person namely, Manish Kumar Singh, who has already granted bail by this Court. It is pointed out that petitioner is a man of clean antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State, while opposing the prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner, submitted that proceeding under section 82 of the Cr.P.C. has already been initiated against the petitioner and, therefore, present prayer of anticipatory bail is not maintainable.

6. The aforesaid submission of learned A.P.P. could not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. In view of the aforesaid factual submission and by taking note of the fact as the proceeding under section 82 Cr.P.C. has already been initiated against this petitioner, accordingly, present prayer of anticipatory bail of the petitioner stands dismissed being not maintainable.

(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J) Rajeev/- U T