Rajnish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74024 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-285 Year-2015 Thana- GANDHIMAIDAN District- Patna ====================================================== Rajnish Kumar Son of Gopal Singh Village- Raghopur Purvi, PS- Jurabanpur District -Vaishali ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mrs. Asha Devi, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 19-11-2025 Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Asha Devi, learned APP.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Gandhi Maidan P.S. Case No. 285 of 2015 for the offence under sections 379, 411, 414 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code lodged on 11.07.2015 by the informant, Anil Kumar.

3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that he went near Corporation Bank, Exhibition Road, Patna and after parking the motorcycle, entered the bank. Once, he came out, the motorcycle was missing. The further allegation is that three persons came on the same motorcycle for filling up petrol, the petrol pump staff managed to apprehend one of them and two persons managed to escape. Lawalu Kumar Singh who was apprehended gave the name of other two accused persons as

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74024 of 2025(2) dt.19-11-2025 2/2 Rajnish Kumar (petitioner) and Sunny Kumar. This led to the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had no knowledge about the present case, once got the information, has filed the petition.

5. Learned APP opposes the prayer submitting that in the year 2015, the occurrence took place, three persons were at the petrol pump, one apprehend and the other escaped, at the said place itself, the petitioner was named by the person apprehended.

6. Taking into account the submissions of the parties as also the materials on record particularly that the matter is a decade old and the petitioner has criminal antecedent also, in that background, this Court is not inclined to extend him privilege of anticipatory bail.

7. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

8. If, however, the petitioner surrenders within four weeks, the concerned Court shall take up the matter and dispose it of preferably on the same day.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U T