Sonu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73282 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-102 Year-2025 Thana- GANGABRIDGE District- Vaishali ====================================================== Sonu Kumar S/O Late Arjun Singh Resident of Bariyarpur Gaushpur Bariyarpur Bishunpur Balbhadar, P.S.- Raja Pakar, District- Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shivanand Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Nitya Nand Tiwary ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 05-12-2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Ganga Bridge P.S. Case No. 102 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 111, 112 and 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that unknown accused committed theft of his tractor loaded with sand.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was against unknown and the name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of Amit in police custody, which does not have any evidentiary value. It is

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73282 of 2025(2) dt.05-12-2025 2/2 reiterated and submitted that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent.

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 Amit Ranjan, but then Amit and Pinku were arrested and based on the confessional statement of Pinku, the tractor was recovered. It is also submitted that similarly sitauted co-accused Raja Kumar @ Rana Ankit @ Rana Ankit Raja had moved this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc. No.64265/2025 and the same came to be rejected by an order dated 25.09.2025. It is next submitted that the case of the petitioner is similar to the case of Raja Kumar and investigation of the case is still continuing.

6. Considering the submission made by learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T