Raja Ram @ Rajesh Poddar @ Raja Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.32170 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-4 Year-2024 Thana- KHAGARIA RPF/POST District- Khagaria ====================================================== Raja Ram @ Rajesh Poddar @ Raja Kumar Son of Nunulal Poddar Resident of Village - Nawkothi, Ward No.- 3, P.S.- Nawkothi, District - Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Shailendra Kumar, Adv.
For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Satya Nand Shukla, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 16-05-2025 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and Learned APP for the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with R.P.F. Khagaria P.S. Case No.04 of 2024, for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the R.P.(U.P.) Act.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has apprehension that he may be arrested in connection with R.P.F. Khagaria P.S. Case No.04 of 2024 registered under Section 3 of the R.P.(U.P.) Act.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of passing order, the Additional Sessions Judge has categorically acknowledged which states as follows:- "Heard both the parties and perused the case record. From perusal of the case record it is
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32170 of 2025(2) dt.16-05-2025 2/3 apparent that FIR was registered u/s 03 RP(UP) Act. From perusal of record it appears that initially a notice was issued to the present petitioner only on the ground of suspicion giving rise to reasonable apprehension to the present petitioner to seek anticipatory bail. However, detailed investigation as conducted by the Investigating Officer shows that they have discover that the present petitioner was not involved in commission of offence. Rather the original thief has been apprehended and the stolen article have been recovered from his possession. As such no case has been made in the case diary against the present petitioner. As such there is no apprehension of arrest qua the present petitioner. This is not a fit case to allow anticipatory bail. Hence present application is hereby rejected."
5. It transpires to this Court that section 41(A) of the Cr.P.C. indicates that the notice of appearance before police officer in which it has been indicated in 41(A)(1) that the police officer shall, in all cases where the arrest of a person is not required under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 41, issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made. It is further indicated in section 41(A)
(3) that when such person complies and continues to comply with the notice, he shall not be arrested in respect of the offence referred to in the notice unless, for reasons to be recorded, the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.32170 of 2025(2) dt.16-05-2025 3/3 police officer is of the opinion that he ought to be arrested.
6. Here in the present case, it has been observed by the Sessions Court that original thief has been apprehended and stolen articles have been recovered from his possession. As such, no case has been made out in the case diary against the present petitioner. Those observations are in favour of the petitioner by the Sessions Court, even then the petitioner is seeking anticipatory bail. In this regard, this Court only observed without interfering in the order passed by the Sessions Court that if the police found that there is a reason with the police to be arrested to the petitioner in the present case, he shall grant 60 days to the petitioner so that he may move before the Court for anticipatory bail.
7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present bail application stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U