Raja Kumar @ Rana Ankit @ Rana Ankit Raja v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.64265 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-102 Year-2025 Thana- GANGABRIDGE District- Vaishali ====================================================== Raja Kumar @ Rana Ankit @ Rana Ankit Raja S/o Rakesh Kumar Singh R/o Village- Khoksa Buzurg, P.S.- Desari, District- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dilip Kumar Roy For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Rabindra Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 25-09-2025 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State, Shri Rabindra Kumar. 2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Ganga Bridge P.S. Case No. 102 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 111, 112 and 303(2) 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 unknown accused committed theft of his tractor loaded with sand.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was against unknown and the name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of Pinku and Amit in police custody, which does not have any evidentiary value. It is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.64265 of 2025(2) dt.25-09-2025 2/2 reiterated and submitted that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent.

5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that no doubt the name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of Pinku and Amit Ranjan, but then based on the confessional statement of Pinku, even the tractor was recovered, which amply demonstrates the involvement of the accused persons including the petitioner in the occurrence.

6.

Considering the submission made by 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