Golu Ram @ Roshan Ram v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71035 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-333 Year-2024 Thana- BARARI District- Katihar ====================================================== Golu Ram @ Roshan Ram S/o Rajkishor Ram Resident of - Bhawanipur, P.S - Semapur, District - Katihar ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Abhay Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 04-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Section 310(2) of B.N.S., 2023 as well as under Sections 25(1-B)A/26/27/35 of the Arms Act. Later on, Section 317(3) of B.N.S., 2023 was also added.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of two cases and the informant alleges that six accused on two motorcycles on 20.11.2024 at 06:50 p.m. intercepted him and looted Rs.65,169/- on point of gun along with other articles as detailed in the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71035 of 2025(2) dt.04-11-2025 2/2 informant. It is next submitted that the FIR was against unknown and the name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of apprehended accused in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value.

5. Learned APP vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that the case is of road robbery and the name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of apprehended accused in police custody and the petitioner also carries criminal antecedents, as such, if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, he may abscond.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is hereby rejected in connection with Barari P.S. Case No.333 of 2024. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Sanjay/- U T