Narayan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34949 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-995 Year-2024 Thana- RAMKRISHNANAGAR District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

Narayan Kumar S/O Binod Sharma Resident of Village- Govindpur, P.S.- Okri, District- Jehanabad 2.

Gaurav Kumar S/O Sanjay Sharma Resident of Village- Sonwa, P.S.- Ghosi, District- Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Surendra Kumar Mishra, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Nawal Kishore Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 20-08-2025 Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during pendency of the present bail application, petitioner No.2 has been arrested. Therefore, he is not pressing anticipatory bail application for petitioner No.2.

3. The petitioner No.1 is apprehending arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable in connection with Ram Krishna Nagar P.S. Case No.995 of 2024 under Section 303(3) of the BNS, 2023 pending before the court of J.M.-1st Class, Patna.

4. As per the prosecution, the FIR has been lodged against unknown accused persons against whom there is allegation of theft of four wheelers Tavera of the informant.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner No.1 submits

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34949 of 2025(3) dt.20-08-2025 2/2 that the petitioner No.1 is innocent and has committed no offence. He submits that name of petitioner No.1 has figured in this case by virtue of confessional statement of co-accused persons save and except there is nothing against the petitioner No.1.

6. Learned Counsel also submits that antecedent of the petitioner No.1 is not clean and there are 3 criminal antecedent of the petitioner No.1 and in all cases, he is on bail.

7. Learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the District and Sessions Judge at the time of passing final order has perused the case diary and in the case diary, it has come that entire operation of theft has been recorded in the CCTV footage and CCTV was identified by one of the co-accused person and disclosed the name of the petitioner No.1.

8. In the present facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner No.1, therefore the bail application of the petitioner No.1 is hereby rejected.

(Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U T