Ankush Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76392 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-140 Year-2025 Thana- SALIMPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Ankush Kumar Son of Arun Kumar @ Arun Singh R/O Village- Mogalpura Bigha, P.S.- Salimpur, Distt.- Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Jay Ram Prasad For the Opposite Party/s :

Ms. Renu Kumari ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 01-12-2025 1.

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

2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Salimpur PS Case No. 140 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under Section 309(4) 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 4 unknown accused intercepted him and looted Rs. 5,62,500/- and motorcycle at point of weapon and their face was masked.

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 apprehended accused

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76392 of 2025(2) dt.01-12-2025 2/2 Amresh in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value.

5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that no doubt name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of Amresh in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value, but then some looted amount was also recovered from the house of Amresh, which prima facie demonstrates his involvement in the occurrence, it is thus submitted that since name of the petitioner came in the confessional statement of co-accused from whose house looted money was recovered, as such it is not a case for grant of anticipatory bail, when investigation of the case is in its nascent stages.

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) Sumit/- U T