Mehilal Kumar @ Amit Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.67376 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-82 Year-2023 Thana- MAHINDWARA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Mehilal Kumar @ Amit Kumar son of Mahindra Sah Resident of VillageTariyani Chhapra, Ward no. 3, Siropati, PS - Belsand, Dist- Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 07-10-2025

1. 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 the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges that he was intercepted by three motorcycle borne criminals who on the point of pistol looted his articles including the motorcycle and fled away.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR was against unknown and the name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of Babul Kumar and Rajnish Kumar in police custody who were apprehended in Mahindwara P.S. Case No. 86 of 2023. It is further submitted that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.67376 of 2025(2) dt.07-10-2025 2/2 confessional statement in police custody does not have any evidentiary value in the eye of law.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently 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 apprehended accused but then the apprehended accused also disclosed the name of Bittu Kumar and Ricky Kumar and from the house of Bittu Kumar two motorcycles were recovered. It is further submitted that investigation in the case is continuing and if petitioner is granted the privilege of anticipatory bail, the petitioner may abscond.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in connection with Mahindwara P.S. Case No. 82 of 2023 pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sitamarhi/Successor Court.

7. Hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Kundan/- U T