← Library
Patna High CourtCR. MISC./74754/2025bail rejected

Santosh Kumar @ Mangla v. The State Of Bihar

2025-11-19Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74754 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-140 Year-2025 Thana- SALIMPUR District- Patna ====================================================== SANTOSH KUMAR @ MANGLA S/O Dayanand Yadav R/o vill - Mogalpur Bigha, P.S.- Bakhtiyarpur, Distt.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Bhim Sen Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Bharat Bhushan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 19-11-2025 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner is apprehending arrest in connection with Salimpur P.S. Case No. 140 of 2025 instituted under Sections 309(4) of Bhartiya Nayay Sanhita, 2023 lodged on 26.05.2025 by the informant, Vijay Kumar Chauhan.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that he is serving with the petrol pump at Dariyapur as a Manager and on the fateful day, he was going to deposit Rs.5,62,500/- in the bank. The allegation is that on way, they were intercepted by two motorcycles borne accused persons and later on the point of pistol, took away the amount. This led to the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his name has come in the confessional statement of accused and

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74754 of 2025(2) dt.19-11-2025 2/2 have no value in the eyes of law. If granted relief, he shall be diligently appearing in trial.

5. Learned APP, Mr. Bharat Bhushan opposes the prayer submitting that not only he has criminal antecedent, the accused persons in course of the investigation, was apprehended and named him.

6. Taking into account the submissions of the parties as also the allegation that has come against the petitioner coupled with the fact that he has criminal antecedent, in that background, this Court is not inclined to extend him the privilege of anticipatory bail which is accordingly, rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U T