Dyanand Prasad Verma @ Dyanand Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.45809 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-484 Year-2024 Thana- BAHADURPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Dyanand Prasad Verma @ Dyanand Prasad Son of Resident of Village - Kajichak, P.S.- Barh, District - Patna. At present Railway Hunter Road Rajendra Nagar, Lohanipur, P.S.- Kadamkuan, District - Patna. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Surendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Md. Shakir Ahmad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Sections 305 and 317(2) of the BNS.

3. As per the prosecution case, it is alleged that on 07.12.2024, Anju Devi committed theft of jewelry in the house of the informant and upon enquiry she returned some jewelry along with cash of Rs. 36,500/- and said that remaining jewelry got lost.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Petitioner is not named in the FIR and name of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.45809 of 2025(2) dt.28-07-2025 2/2 petitioner transpired in the present case during the course of investigation on the basis of confessional statement of coaccused person namely, Vishal Kumar who happens to be the son of the informant. No incriminating article has been recovered from possession of the petitioner.

5. Learned APP for the State has opposed the bail petition and submits that petitioner is owner of Mahalaxmi Jewelry shop and during the course of investigation in the CCTV footage, it has come that the co-accused Anju Devi was selling the stolen jewelry in the said shop of the petitioner. Petitioner carries one criminal antecedent.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the nature of allegation levelled in the FIR, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Shahnawaz/- U T