Patna High CourtCR. MISC./71831/2025bail rejected

Vivek Kumar @ Vickey v. The State Of Bihar

2025-10-16Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.71831 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-259 Year-2022 Thana- BIHAR District- Nalanda ====================================================== Vivek Kumar @ Vickey S/o Mr. Suresh Mahto R/o Village- Chande, P.S. and District- Sheikhpura ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajiv Nayan- Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad- A.P.P.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 16-10-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in Bihar P. S. Case No. 259 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 379, 392 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of four cases and the informant alleges that he works with flipkart and had gone to deliver goods when he received a call on his mobile and the caller asked him to deliver his parcel. Accordingly, he went to the place of occurrence, when the accused persons looted him and took his motorcycle.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.71831 of 2025(2) dt.16-10-2025 2/2 FIR was instituted against unknown and the name of the petitioner transpired during the course of investigation in the confessional statement of apprehended accused in police custody, which does not have any evidentiary value.

5. Learned A.P.P. Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that no doubt, FIR was against unknown, but then, name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of apprehended accused and petitioner has antecedent of four cases and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioner may abscond and investigation of the case is still continuing.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P., the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) vikash/- U T