Abhishek Dubey v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.39893 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-92 Year-2026 Thana- KATEYA District- Gopalganj ====================================================== Abhishek Dubey S/o Pujari Dubey Resident of Village - Raipura, P.S. - Kateya, District - Gopalganj.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-06-2026

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

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 118(1), 109(1), 351(3) and 352 of the BNS, 2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of six cases and the informant alleges that Ripu and Pujari caught the informant and petitioner assaulted by knife repeatedly causing injury on various parts of the body.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that from perusal of the order impugned, it would manifest that the injury report was not produced despite order of the learned District Court, as such, the learned District Court directed for initiating a departmental

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.39893 of 2026(2) dt.29-06-2026 2/2 proceeding against the Investigating Officer of the case.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner and submits that there is a specific allegation against this petitioner of stabbing the informant repeatedly causing injury on various parts of the body. It is next submitted that from perusal of the pleadings made in the anticipatory bail application, it would manifest that petitioner has not even denied the said allegation that he had not assaulted by knife. It is also submitted that petitioner has antecedent of six cases and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioner may abscond or try to tamper with the evidence.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and also taking into consideration the criminal antecedent of the petitioner, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T