Anshu Kumar @ Khikari @ Khilari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.47091 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2025 Thana- PASRAHA District- Khagaria ====================================================== 1.

Anshu Kumar @ khikari @ Khilari Son of Ramjit Singh @ Ranjit Singh R/o - Dharmpur Banni, P.S - Maheshkhunt, District - Khagaria 2.

Dinesh Kumar @ Fudo son of Bhogi Sah @ Bhogendra Sah R/o - Dharmpur Banni, P.S - Maheshkhunt, District - Khagaria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar Choudhary, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Pushpa Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA ORAL ORDER 09-10-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioners seek bail in connection with Pasraha P.S. Case No. 60 of 2025, GR No. 811 of 2025 instituted for the offences under Section 309(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. As per prosecution case, three unknown criminals committed a loot of cash amounting to Rs. 1520/-, a mobile phone and the motorcycle of the informant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case. Petitioners are not named in the F.I.R. The name of the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.47091 of 2025(4) dt.09-10-2025 2/2 petitioners transpired in this case on the basis of confessional statement of co-accused Monu Kumar. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that general and omnibus allegation has been made against the petitioners. No specific overt act is alleged against the petitioners. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioner no. 1 is in custody since 10.04.2025 whereas petitioner no. 2 is in custody since 14.04.2025 and have one criminal antecedent each.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioners stating that the prayer for grant of bail to a similarly situated co-accused person has already been rejected by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.09.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 43504 of 2025.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioners is, hereby, rejected.

(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J) Alok Verma/- U T