Patna High CourtCR. MISC./73840/2025bail rejected

Hariom Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2025-11-18Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.73840 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-350 Year-2023 Thana- PALIGANJ District- Patna ====================================================== Hariom Kumar S/o Divakar Sharma R/o Village- Lodipur, P.S.- Hulasganj in the district of Jehanabad ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sunil Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

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

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 18-11-2025

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

2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in Paliganj P. S. Case No.350 of 2023 registered for the offences punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges that four unknown accused intercepted him and looted his motorcycle, mobile, SIM etc.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR is against unknown and the name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of co-accused. It is also submitted that the looted mobile was also recovered from the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.73840 of 2025(2) dt.18-11-2025 2/2 petitioner,but then, petitioner had purchased the said mobile from Suraj and was completely oblivious of the fact that the mobile was a looted one.

5. Learned A.P.P. Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that it is a case of road robbery and the looted mobile was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and the investigation of the case is in its nascent stage.

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