Sanjay Kamat @ Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar Kamat v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.74918 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-291 Year-2025 Thana- SUPAUL District- Supaul ====================================================== Sanjay Kamat @ Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Kumar Kamat S/O Siyaram Kamat Resident of Mohalla- Bari Durga Mandir, Ward No. 11, P.S.- Supaul, Distt.- Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Balkrishna Mishra, Advocate For the State :
Mr. Shyameshwar Dayal, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 20-02-2026 Heard Mr. Balkrishna Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP representing the State.
2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Supaul P.S. Case No. 291 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, lodged on 11.06.2025 by the informant Pranav Kumar Bhaskar.
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged that while his brother-in-law went to SBI ATM to withdraw money and he was waiting in the auto, the accused took away the bag containing ornaments containing worth Rupees Ten Lakhs beside Rupees Eight Thousand cash. This led to the F.I.R..
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.74918 of 2025(3) dt.20-02-2026 2/2
4. Subsequently, the investigation took place, Satish Kumar was picked up which followed arrest of Raushan Kumar and one Sanjay Kumar and their confessional Statement shows that it was the petitioner Sanjay Kamat who planned the entire episode, took the accused with him and he was the person who snatched the bag and later after distributing it between the accused, went away with the bag.
5. Considering the allegation that has come in course of investigation, the main role of petitioner has been recorded, in that background, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
6. The anticipatory bail application stands rejected. (Rajiv Roy, J) vinayak/- U T