Sawan Kumar @ Sawan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58705 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-1119 Year-2022 Thana- KHAJANCHI HAT District- Purnia ====================================================== Sawan Kumar @ Sawan Yadav S/O Prithivi Chand Yadav R/O VillageJurabganj, Police Station- Kodha, District- Katihar ... ... Petitioner/S

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sarvesh Kashyap For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ramchandra Sahni ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-09-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in K.Hat P. S. Case No.1119 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and informant alleges that while she was coming back home with her husband on scooty when they were intercepted by two unknown accused age in between 22 to 28 years, who snatched her chain with locket.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the informant. It is next submitted that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and he came to be implicated based on the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58705 of 2025(2) dt.08-09-2025 2/2 confessional statement of Ramesh, who disclosed that the chain belongs to his mother and he sold to petitioner's aunt as he was in need of money subsequently whereof police came to the house of the petitioner and recovered the chain from his aunt. It is submitted that Ramesh in his confessional statement has clearly stated that the chain which was recovered from the aunt of the petitioner was not the looted chain rather the same was chain of his mother which he had sold since he was in need of money.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that it is a case of chain snatching and the chain was recovered from the aunt of the petitioner based on confessional statement of Ramesh. It is also submitted that the chain was a looted article. It is also submitted that investigation in the case is continuing.

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

7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T