Agam Kumar @ Agama Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49707 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2025 Thana- LAUHIYANAGAR District- Begusarai ====================================================== Agam Kumar @ Agama Kumar S/o Bishnu Dev Ray R/o Village - Jagdishpur Ramanand Nagar, Kushmaut, P.S. - Muffasil, Dist. - Begusarai(Bihar). ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Deepak Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Raj Ballabh Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 28-07-2026 1.

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

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Lohiya Nagar PS Case No. 70 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Section 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that three unknown accused intercepted him and looted Rs. 5,25,592/- along with other articles as detailed in the FIR and the accused were in age group of 35-40 years.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR was against unknown and the name of the petitioner transpired during the course of investigation based on confessional statement of apprehended accused in police custody, it is further submitted that confessional statement in police custody does not have any evidentiary value.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49707 of 2026(2) dt.28-07-2026 2/2 5.

On query of the court from the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that what does the petitioner do for his living, on which the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a labour and works in a company at Delhi, as such the Court made further query that where the petitioner in Delhi resides and in which company he works, on which the learned counsel submits that he does not have any information in this regard nor any pleading to that effect is made in the anticipatory bail application that petitioner is a labour and works in Delhi. 6.

Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the case is of road robbery and the investigation of the case is continuing. 7.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the submission made by learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

8.

Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T