Akhilesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.58666 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-60 Year-2025 Thana- MOTIHARI MUFASIL District- East Champaran ====================================================== Akhilesh Kumar S/o- Upendra Yadav Village- Bairiya Ward No-5 PoChandrahiya Ps-Piprakothi District- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Madhurendra Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms.Gulnar Begum ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-09-2025 1.

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

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Motihari Muffasil P.S. Case No. 60 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Section 309(4) 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 his motorcycle was dashed by a Bolero and two accused came out of the Bolero and looted his bike, mobile and Rs. 2,000 on point of pistol.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was against unknown and the petitioner came to be

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.58666 of 2025(2) dt.08-09-2025 2/2 implicated based on confessional statement of Dheeraj in police custody, which does not have any evidentiary value. 5.

The learned APP vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that no doubt name of the petitioner transpired based on confessional statement of Dheeraj in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value, but then the looted mobile was recovered from Dheeraj, as such for the present the confessional statement of Dheeraj cannot be overlooked. It is also submitted that investigation in the case is continuing.

6.

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

7.

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

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U T