Patna High CourtCR. MISC./63688/2025bail rejected

Vinit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2025-09-22Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.63688 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-72 Year-2025 Thana- TAJPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== Vinit Kumar, S/O Shiv Kumar Sahani R/O Village- Maulagadh, P.S.- Bhagwanpur, District-Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajeev Ranjan For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 22-09-2025

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

2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in Tajpur P. S. Case No.72 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 309(4) of the B.N.S.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that he along with his cousin brother were going to attend their sister's wedding on a motorcycle on 18.05.2025, when they were intercepted by three unknown accused persons who looted Rs.5,000/- along with the motorcycle.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was against unknown and the name of the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.63688 of 2025(2) dt.22-09-2025 2/2 transpired based on the confessional statement of Nitish and confessional statement in police custody does not have any evidentiary value. It is reiterated and submitted that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent.

5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that from perusal of the order impugned, it would manifest that the looted motorcycle was recovered from the house of the petitioner. It is also submitted that investigation of the case is in its nascent stages.

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