Pankaj Mahto @ Pankaj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.42010 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-315 Year-2024 Thana- RAGHOPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Pankaj Mahto @ Pankaj Kumar S/o Kailash Mahto R/o- Rustampur, Panchpaairya, P.S.- Rustampur, Dist- Vaishali, Bihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Binod Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 09-07-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State, Mr. Binod Kumar No. 3.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 103, 61(2) and 3(5) of BNS.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that her husband was in judicial custody and his friend Bhullu Rai used to visit her and pressurized her for getting married to him, further on 08.11.2024 in her absence, Bhullu Rai kidnapped her minor son aged about three years and threatened that if she will not marry him, the child would be

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42010 of 2025(2) dt.09-07-2025 2/3 killed and called her at Jethuli Ghat where the informant went, but the child was not handed over, further on 09.11.2024, the dead body of the child was recovered, thus, alleges that Bhullu in conspiracy killed the child.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR and his name transpired in the confessional statement of Bhullu Rai in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value. It is also submitted that thrust of the allegation is against Bhullu Rai that he was pressurizing the informant to get married and since the informant was not acceding to his request, as such, he committed the occurrence.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that offence is a heinous, what is not disputed rather stands admitted is that a child aged about three years was killed and the name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of Bhullu Rai. It is next submitted that the investigation of the case 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, the Court is not inclined to extend the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.42010 of 2025(2) dt.09-07-2025 3/3 privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T