Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Mishra v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42061 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1044 Year-2021 Thana- PHULWARISHARIF District- Patna ====================================================== Rajesh Kumar @ Rajesh Mishra S/O Lallu Mishra @ Lalu Mishra Resident of village- Bijavan, P.S.- Rajauli, District- Nawadah ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Shyam Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 09-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 395 of IPC.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges that while he was returning home from the function in the night of 01.12.2021, when he was intercepted by 15 accused persons, who at the gun point had looted him.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case during the course of the investigating, as the FIR was instituted against unknown. It is next submitted that the name of the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42061 of 2025(2) dt.09-07-2025 2/2 transpired in the confessional statement of apprehended 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 it is the case of road robbery/dacoity. It is next submitted that the looted mobile was recovered from co-accused who disclosed the name of the petitioner and alleged that it was the petitioner who made the mobile available for the same. It is also submitted that the investigation is in its nascent stages and if the privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond.

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

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

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Saurav/- U T