Rohit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.50210 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-74 Year-2025 Thana- BHAGWANPUR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Rohit Kumar S/O Ravi Kumar Resident of Village- Rahsa Urf Rahsa Doyam, P.S- Bhagwanpur, District- Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sudha For the Opposite Party/s :

Md. Matloob Rab ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 11-08-2025 1.

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

2.

The petitioner apprehend his arrest in connection with Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No. 74 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115, 109, 117, 351(2), 352, 3(5) and 103(1) 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 while Pradeep Das was performing puja in the temple, when the accused persons including the petitioner were drinking in the temple premises, when Pradeep Das objected on which all the accused assaulted him, further when the informant came to save him, Sudhir along with other accused assaulted indiscriminately by rod on head causing injury and fracture of

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.50210 of 2025(2) dt.11-08-2025 2/2 hand, further when Mukesh came to save them, he was also assaulted and threatened.

4.

It is next submitted that there is no specific allegation of assault against the petitioner, on which the learned APP submits that similarly situated co-accused persons have moved this court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc No. 49388 of 2025 (Sudhir Kumar & others vs. the state of Bihar) and this court after considering the case in detail rejected the anticipatory bail application, it is thus submitted that case of the petitioner is also on similar footing.

5.

Considering the submission made by the learned APP and also taking into consideration the order dated 11-82025 in Cr. Misc No. 49388 of 2025, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6.

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

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T