Suresh Bhuiyan @ Sudesh Bhuiyan @ Suresh Rikiyasan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74691 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-280 Year-2025 Thana- MADANPUR District- Aurangabad ====================================================== 1.

Suresh Bhuiyan @ Sudesh Bhuiyan @ Suresh Rikiyasan S/o Kishun Bhuiyan R/o - Bara Bigha, P.S - Madanpur, District - Aurangabad 2.

Kallu Bhuiyan @ Kallu Kumar S/o Suresh Bhuiyan @ Sudesh Bhuiyan @ Suresh Rikiyasan R/o - Bara Bigha, P.S - Madanpur, District - Aurangabad 3.

Mantosh Paswan @ Mantosh Kumar S/o Late Sewak Paswan R/o - Bara Bigha, P.S - Madanpur, District - Aurangabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bindeshwar Prasad Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 19-11-2025 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Madanpur P.S. Case No. 280 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 303(2) of the B.N.S., lodged on 02.07.2025 by the informant Raviranjan Kumar.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioner no.1, namely Suresh Bhuiyan has been arrested and as such, permission be granted to withdraw his anticipatory bail application.

4. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of petitioner no.1, Suresh Bhuiyan is dismissed as withdrawn.

5. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that earlier, his submersible motor pump was stolen by these petitionerz and on the intervention of the villagers, the same was

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74691 of 2025(2) dt.19-11-2025 2/2 returned. Once again, the theft has taken place and the accused persons (petitioners herein) are absconding. This led to the F.I.R.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that only because earlier, it was taken away by them, in the second time also they have been implicated.

7. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that after the theft the petitioner no. 2 and 3 were absconding.

8. Considering the submissions of the parties as also the allegation that has come as there is repeat theft, in that background, no relief can be granted to the petitioner no. 2 and 3 namely Kallu Bhuiyan @ Kallu Kumar and Mantosh Paswan @ Mantosh Kumar respectively.

9. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected.

10. However, if the petitioners surrender within a period of four weeks, files bail application, the court concerned shall consider the matter and dispose it of preferably on the same day.

(Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U T