Suraj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.49798 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-287 Year-2025 Thana- SIMRI District- Darbhanga ====================================================== Suraj Kumar Son of Bechan Sahni Resident of Village- Phulthua (Fulathua), P.S.- Simari, District- Darbhanga (Bihar) ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr.Manoj Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 29-07-2026

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

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 309 of the BNS, 2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges that eight unknown accused persons intercepted him and his friends and on point of knife and gun snatched his motorcycle and mobile of his friends Sachin and Raushan.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant, it is also submitted that FIR was against the unknown and the name of the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49798 of 2026(2) dt.29-07-2026 2/3 transpired in the confessional statement of Manish, it is next submitted that Manish in his confessional statement disclosed the name that Rajeev and Prince also and Rajeev has been granted the privilege of anticipatory bail by an order dated 20.05.2026 in Cri Misc. No. 33783 of 2026 (Annexure-3) passed by learned Co-ordinate Bench, as such, based on parity, the petitioner also seeks anticipatory bail.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner and submits that no doubt name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of Manish, but then Manish had also taken the name of Prince and Rajeev and from possession of Prince, the looted articles were recovered and the said fact was not brought to the notice of the learned Co-ordinate Bench when Cri Misc No. 33783 of 2026 was argued.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. This application stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) nitesh/- U T

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.49798 of 2026(2) dt.29-07-2026 3/3