Chandrashekhar Prasad @ Shekhar @ Sagar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66872 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-358 Year-2020 Thana- JAHANABAD District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Chandrashekhar Prasad @ Shekhar @ Sagar S/o- Kapildev Ray @ Kapil Deo Prasad Village- Sipara Mathkhana PS- Beur District- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Tej Narayan Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Umanath Mishra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 09-12-2025 Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offence punishable under Section 398 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. The prosecution story, as alleged in the F.I.R., is that while the informant was returning after closing his jewellery shop and as he reached near Urdu School, Malah Chak, all the F.I.R. named accused persons, including this petitioner, stopped his vehicle and demanded his bag. It is further alleged that one of them pointed pistol upon him while some other accused persons also fired. In the meantime, police party arrived at the place of occurrence and all the accused persons tried to flee away but one accused person, namely

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.66872 of 2025(2) dt.09-12-2025 2/2 Rakesh Kumar @ Pintu @ Fauji Kumar, was apprehended at the spot.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner is quite innocent and has committed no offence. Petitioner has been made an accused in this case merely on the basis of confessional statement of coaccused person who was apprehended at the spot. Except confessional statement, there is no material on record to show the complicity of this petitioner in the alleged occurrence.

5. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submitted that petitioner is named in the F.I.R. and during course of investigation, this petitioner was identified by the informant in the CCTV footage. Petitioner has got one criminal antecedent of similar nature .

6. Considering the nature of accusation and fact that petitioner has got one criminal antecedent the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is rejected. (Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) Koushik/- U