Shrawan Kumar @ Sravan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66939 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-216 Year-2025 Thana- SASARAM MUFFSIL District- Rohtas ====================================================== Shrawan Kumar @ Sravan Kumar S/o Ramadhar Singh, R/o VillageMisripur @ Mishripur, P.S.- Sasaram Muffasil, Distsrict- Rohtas (Sasaram). ... ... Petitioner

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party :

Ms. Pushpa Sinha, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT KUMAR ORAL ORDER 17-09-2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sasaram Muffasil P.S. Case No. 216 of 2025, dated 26.06.2025, registered for the offences punishable under Section 310(2) of the B.N.S., 2023.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25.06.2025 at about 03:55 PM, while the informant was patrolling at village Khanda, he received information that some unknown persons with an intention to loot were beating one person, and to verify the same and take action, the informant reached the alleged place where he found the victim, who disclosed his name as Dilip Kumar. Dilip Kumar further told the informant that while he was returning to his house, a four-

2/4 wheeler intercepted his vehicle, and 6 to 7 persons came out of that vehicle, and two of them were armed with pistols. They assaulted Dilip Kumar and also snatched Rs. 25,000/- from him and fled away towards Khandwa village. On hearing hulla, the villagers chased the said vehicle and noted down its registration number, JH10CD7508. When police inquired about the said registration number, the owner of the vehicle in question was found to be one Dinesh Kumar.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the present case. Petitioner is not named in the FIR and name of the petitioner transpired in the present case on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused person namely, Dinesh Kumar. No incriminating material has been recovered from the house of the petitioner. On search made by the police, in fact, at the time of alleged occurrence, the petitioner was at his house and for ulterior motive his name has been dragged in this case by the co-accused person. It is further submitted that the said coaccused has been granted bail by the learned trial Court itself. It is lastly submitted that petitioner carries one criminal antecedent in which he is on bail as mentioned in paragraph no. 3 of the bail application.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

3/4 State has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.

6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that petitioner is not named in the FIR, his name surfaced on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused person and no incriminating material has been recovered from the house of the petitioner, let the petitioner, above-named, be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest or surrender before the learned trial Court within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order, on furnishing bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sasaram, in connection with Sasaram Muffasil P.S. Case No. 216 of 2025, subject to the conditions laid down under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. / Section 482(2) of the B.N.S.S., as well as on the following conditions:

(i) one of the bailors should be the family member / relative of the petitioner(s), who shall provide official document to show his / her bona fide;

(ii) the petitioner(s) shall appear on each and every date before the learned trial Court and failure to do so for two

4/4 consecutive dates without plausible reason will entail cancellation of his / her / their bail bond by the learned trial Court itself;

(iii) the petitioner(s) shall in no way try to induce or promise or threat the witnesses or tamper with the evidence, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of the bail bond;

(iv) the petitioner(s) shall desist from committing any criminal offence again, failing which the State shall be at liberty to take steps for cancellation of their bail bonds. (Ajit Kumar, J) Shahnawaz/- U T