Patna High CourtCR. MISC./47759/2025bail rejected

Ray Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2025-08-04Mr. Justice Prabhat Kumar Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47759 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-453 Year-2024 Thana- RANIYATALAB District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

Ray Kumar S/o Balmiki Yadav R/o Jitan Chhapra, P.S.- Rani Talab, DisttPatna 2.

Raju Yadav @ Raju Kumar S/o Balmiki Yadav R/o Jitan Chhapra, P.S.- Rani Talab, Distt- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioners :

Mr. Avinash Raj, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 04-08-2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 310(2) of the B.N.S..

3. As per prosecution case, on the alleged date and time of occurrence, while the informant was returning from a marriage ceremony on his car along with his companions, in the meantime, 5-6 unknown miscreants riding on two motorcycles intercepted them near Jitan Chhapra village and looted mobile phone and cash.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47759 of 2025(2) dt.04-08-2025 2/2 behalf of the petitioners that petitioners are quite innocent and have committed no offence. Petitioners are not named in the F.I.R.. Name of petitioners transpired in this case during course of investigation on the basis of confessional statement of coaccused person. Similarly situated co-accused, namely Sanni Kumar, has already been granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 23.04.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 21888 of 2025.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Petitioner No. 1 has got 9 criminal antecedents and Petitioner No. 2 has got 6 criminal antecedents.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of accusation and criminal antecedents of the petitioners, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners is rejected.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashank/- U T