Amit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.34845 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-693 Year-2025 Thana- MADHEPURA District- Madhepura ====================================================== Amit Kumar son of Krit Narayan Yadav @ Kritnarayan Yadav R/o VillageBhelwa Gadhiya, Ward No 10, P.S-Madhepura, District-Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 27-07-2026 Heard Mr. Pawan Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Madhepura P.S. Case No. 693 of 2025, registered for the offenses punishable under Section 304(2) of the B.N.S.

3. On the given date and time of the occurrence, while informant was returning to his village, in the meanwhile, two unknown miscreants riding on a motorcycle overtook him and snatched his motorcycle, mobile and cash.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the FIR has been instituted against unknown miscreants, however, later on one Bhavesh Kumar has been apprehended by the police, who disclosed the name of the petitioner as an accomplice. Save and except the confessional statement, there is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.34845 of 2026(3) dt.27-07-2026 2/2 no material suggesting the complicity of the petitioner in the crime. Moreover, the confession before the police is said to be not admissible in the eyes of law is the contention of the learned Advocate.

5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the State vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that the petitioner is carrying two criminal antecedents.

6. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of the fact that the name of the petitioner has surfaced in confessional statement of the co-accused Bhavesh Kumar and he is apprehended by the police, from whose possession the looted motorcycle was recovered; besides the petitioner is carrying two criminal antecedents, this Court is not acceded to the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail to the petitioner stands rejected.

7. However, if the petitioner surrenders before the court below, preferably within a period of four weeks from today, his prayer for bail shall be considered without being prejudiced by the order of this Court.

(Harish Kumar, J) siddharth/- U T