Prabhat Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28334 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-46 Year-2024 Thana- BAJPATTI District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== 1.

Prabhat Kumar son of Umashankar Prasad Yadav @ Umashankar Rai village- Ward no. 1, Sandwara, Po- Madhurapur, Ps- Bajpatti, DistSitamarhi 2.

Ful Babu yadav @ Phulbabu Son of Umashankar Prasad Yadav @ Umashankar Rai village- Ward no. 1, Sandwara, Po- Madhurapur, PsBajpatti, Dist- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raghvendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 27-06-2025

1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner renews his prayer for anticipatory bail in connection with Bajpatti Police Station Case No. 46 of 2024, disclosing offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 379, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioners was rejected by order dated 11.12.2024 in Cr. Misc. No. 81372 of 2024 taking into consideration the submission of the parties and the fact that the petitioners had criminal antecedents.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28334 of 2025(2) dt.27-06-2025 2/2 there were 10 criminal antecedents against Petitioner's brother Raja Babu alias Aryan Raj who was also one of the petitioners in the earlier anticipatory bail application along with the petitioners and criminal antecedents of these petitioners were only 2. It appears that the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners was rejected taking into account the 10 criminal antecedents against the petitioners brother Raja Babu who had joined the petitioners in earlier anticipatory bail application.

5. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the parties and taking into consideration the fact that that the anticipatory bail application of the petitioners was rejected after considering the merit of the case as well as the criminal antecedents of the petitioners, the present ground that there was 10 criminal antecedents against the petitioners' brother and only 2 criminal antecedents are there against the petitioners cannot be said to be a ground for reconsideration of the anticipatory bail application in the second attempt.

6. Accordingly, the present application is rejected. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) HarshPandey/- U T