Aman Ranjan @ Aman Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.37371 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-131 Year-2025 Thana- ALAMGANJ District- Patna ====================================================== Aman Ranjan @ Aman Kumar S/O Manoj Kumar Sharma Resident of Village- Paliganj, Prem Dariyapur, P.S.- Paliganj, Dist.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Syed Mojibur Rahman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-06-2025 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Alamganj P.S. Case No. 131 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 25(1-B)a, 26 and 35 of the Arms Act.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case and allegation is of recovery of one country made pistol from Durgesh and a live cartridge from a car and Satyam was arrested. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and he came to be implicated based on confessional statement of apprehended

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.37371 of 2025(2) dt.18-06-2025 2/2 accused in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value.

5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner has one antecedent and his name transpired in the confessional statement of the apprehended accused. It is also submitted that the investigation of the case is in its nascent stages and in the event if the privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond.

6.

Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) SUMIT/- U T