Patna High CourtCR. MISC./39516/2025dismissed

Ravish Kumar @ Ravis Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2025-08-20Mr. Justice Nawneet Kumar Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39516 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-578 Year-2024 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran ====================================================== Ravish Kumar @ Ravis Kumar Son of Ramnandan Rai @ Ramanand Rai Resident of Village - Rani, Ward No.- 8, Police Station - Bachhwara, District - Begusarai.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Raj Kumar Sinha For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Anil Prasad Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 20-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sonepur P.S. Case No. 578 of 2024 registered for the offence punishable under Sections-318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 337, 338, 339, 340(2), 341(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. According to allegation, the petitioner made an unsuccessful attempt to release his seized truck, by producing forged release order of the court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is owner of the truck and his truck was seized in another case in which, the driver was made accused. The

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39516 of 2025(2) dt.20-08-2025 2/2 petitioner was not aware of seizure of the truck. Whatever may be allegation i.e. against the driver and not against the petitioner, who is owner of the truck.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer for bail.

6. From perusal of the FIR, it appears that the petitioner produced the documents of the vehicle including the owner book along with the forged order of release said to be issued by the court. The petitioner is also involved in Saran P.S. Case No. 392 of 2020.

7. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve the privilege of anticipatory bail and accordingly, the same is rejected.

(Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) A.K.V.//- U T