Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36733 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-98 Year-2025 Thana- SINGHESHWAR District- Madhepura ====================================================== Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Kumar Singh S/o- Late Raj Sarup Singh Village -Gauripur PS-Singheshwar, Dist- Madhepura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 18-06-2025 Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Akshay Lal Pandit, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Singheshwar P.S. Case No. 98 of 2025 registered under Sections 371(4), 317(5) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 411, 413, 414 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the petitioner along with other co-accused persons had stolen the household articles of the informant.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. He further submits that the petitioner name has come on the basis of confessional statement made by the co-accused namely, Abhishek Kumar and such confessional statement has no legal sanctity in the eye of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.36733 of 2025(2) dt.18-06-2025 2/2 law. He further claims that no stolen articles were recovered from his house. All the articles and household goods which has been mentioned in the seizure list, belongs to petitioner. The seizure list witnesses are police personnel and the same was not handed over to the petitioner or any of his family members. On this ground, he submits that the petitioner deserved to be release on pre-arrest bail as the seizure list is also against the manner prescribed in Section 106 of the BNSS.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, the criminal history of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to pass order on merits.

7. The petitioner if so desire may surrender and seek regular bail before the Learned District Court. The learned District Court may consider the bail application of the petitioner on the same day and pass reasoned order.

8. Accordingly, the present bail application stands disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J) Sudhanshu/- U T