Pratik Rai @ Pratik Raj v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69357 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-408 Year-2020 Thana- GARDANIBAG District- Patna ====================================================== Pratik Rai @ Pratik Raj S/O Laxuman Rai @ Lakshman Rai @ Lakham Rai R/O Village- Nurpur, Sharifaganj, P.S- Malsalami, Dist.- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Jay Ram Prasad, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ajit Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER 20-02-2026 Heard Mr. Jay Ram Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Gardanibagh P.S.Case No.408 of 2020, registered for the offences punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. As per the allegation made in the FIR, the petitioner along with other co-accused persons looted a Truck loaded with Bananas.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent. He further submitted that the truck was loaded with a huge quantity of bananas, however, in absence of any seizure list, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner has clandestinely removed the entire alleged looted Bananas. Learned counsel further

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.69357 of 2025(5) dt.20-02-2026 2/2 submitted that the truck in question has been recovered from Dhanaua Police Station and not from the place of occurrence or from the location where the FIR has been lodged. The petitioner has been roped in the present case solely on the ground that the vehicle (Safari) is registered in his name.

5. Learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the allegation made in the FIR and the previous criminal antecedent of the petitioner, who is involved in other cases of similar nature, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on pre-arrest bail.

7. However, if the petitioner so advised, he may surrender before the learned district court and seek regular bail.

8. The learned District Court is directed to consider the bail application of the petitioner on the same day and pass necessary order on the basis of materials available on the record in accordance with law.

9. With the above observation/direction, the present application stands disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J) chn/- U T