Raman Kumar Kanti @ Raman @ Raman Kumar Kamti v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.65003 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-271 Year-2025 Thana- ARARIA District- Araria ====================================================== Raman Kumar Kanti @ Raman @ Raman Kumar Kamti S/O Madan Kumar Kanti @ Madan R/O Vill.- Barsoni, Gulab Bagh, P.S.- Purnea (Sadar), Dist.- Purnia ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Ms.Diksha Kumari For the Opposite Party/s :
Mr.Dilip Kumar No. 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 17-09-2025 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 318(4), 316(5), 303(2), 3(5) of the B.N.S., 2023.
3. As per F.I.R., the informant has loaded 697 sacks of maize, having 428.10 quintals weight amounting to Rs. 11,13,060/- in the truck, which was hired from this petitioner, for its transportation to Bijnaur (U.P.), but it did not reach its destination Later on, it transpires that the goods were unloaded somewhere else and disposed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner, being transporter and owner of Samna Patiala Road Carrier, has got no concern with the alleged disappearance of goods of informant. Petitioner fully cooperated with the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.65003 of 2025(2) dt.17-09-2025 2/2 informant in providing updates of whereabout of the alleged truck and sharing the truck's location, which ultimately helped in tracing the truck in question. Real culprit is truck owner/driver. Petitioner has got no concern with the alleged poultry farm, where goods of informant were unloaded. Petitioner claims clean antecedent.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that this petitioner is transporter and it is he, who booked the consignment of the informant. Petitioner cannot escape from his liability.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the prayer for anticipatory bail of petitioner is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) anay U T