Patna High CourtCR. MISC./60130/2025bail rejected

Om Prakash @ Amit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2025-09-15Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60130 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-114 Year-2024 Thana- ASHTHAWAN District- Nalanda ====================================================== Om Prakash @ Amit Kumar S/O Praveen Kumar Verma Resident of VillageNoawan, P.S- Asthawan, District- Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Arun Bharti, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 15-09-2025

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

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Asthawan P.S. Case No. 114 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of two cases and the informant alleges that six accused on two motorcycles intercepted him and looted Rs. 50,000/- along with the mobile.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was not arrested from the spot, as such, nothing was recovered from his conscious possession and his name transpired in the confessional statement of Rahul in police

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60130 of 2025(2) dt.15-09-2025 2/2 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 it is a case of road robbery and the name of the petitioner transpired in confessional statement of Rahul and the investigation is continuing.

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