Kopi Kumar @ Deepak Kumar v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.60442 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-53 Year-2024 Thana- Cyber P.S. District- Nawada ====================================================== Kopi Kumar @ Deepak Kumar S/o Late Arjun Prasad @ Anup Mahto R/o Village- Pengari, P.S.- Warisaliganj, District- Nawada ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr.Jitendra Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Lalan Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 18-09-2025 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 offence punishable under Sections 303(2), 303(2), 303(3), 318(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of B.N.S., 2023 and 66, 66(B), 66(C) and 66(D) of the I.T. Act.
3. As per F.I.R., petitioner has been made accused in this case on the basis of confessional statement of the coaccused who was apprehended on the spot. No incriminating article has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Petitioner has got no concern with any of the four apprehended co-accused persons or any recovered article from the coaccused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.60442 of 2025(3) dt.18-09-2025 2/2 soon as the informant reached at the place of occurrence, 15-20 persons, who were trying to escape from the west of pond, four accused persons were apprehended and the apprehended persons disclosed the name of 22 persons besides this petitioner. Except the above, there is no positive material to connect this petitioner with the alleged offence.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that petitioner has got one criminal antecedent of Sections 417, 420, 467 and 468 of I.P.C.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the antecedent, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) K.C.Jha/- U T