Rajeev Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.53548 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-99 Year-2024 Thana- BITHAN District- Samastipur ====================================================== Rajeev Kumar S/o Pramod Yadav R/o Village- Hathawan, P.S.- Alauli, DisttKhagaria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Indrajit Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 19-08-2025

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 Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 118(1), 109, 352, 351(2), 351(3) of the BNS read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of two cases and the informant alleges that on 23.10.2024 at 07:30 PM he had gone for a walk, when six unknown accused on two motorcycles came and fired four rounds causing injury on his mouth and he suffered three firearm injuries on his legs.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR is against unknown and the petitioner came to be implicated

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.53548 of 2025(2) dt.19-08-2025 2/2 during the course of investigation based on confessional statement of apprehended accused Rabish in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner has antecedent of two cases and the informant received four firearm injuries and the name of the petitioner came to light when Rabish was apprehended and investigation is continuing, as such, if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond.

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

7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T