Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Yadav v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.76285 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-185 Year-2015 Thana- BARACHATTI District- Gaya ====================================================== Manoj Kumar @ Manoj Yadav S/O Hura Yadav @ Jhaman Yadav Resident of Village- Kathautia, Post- Patluka, P.S.- Barachatty, Distt.- Gaya, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Abhijeet Abhigyan For the Opposite Party/s :
Ms. Shaheen Begum ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 27-11-2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Barachatty P.S. Case No.185/2015 dated 12.05.2015, registered for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that he was coming home on his motorcycle when he was intercepted by two unknown accused who looted his motorcycle and Rs.20,000/- on point of pistol.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR was against unknown and the name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of Deepak in police custody,
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.76285 of 2025(2) dt.27-11-2025 2/2 which does not have any evidentiary value. It is next submitted that the case is of the year 2015 and the police never knocked the door of the petitioner for arresting him as such the petitioner was not even aware of his involvement in the occurrence.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the case is of the year 2015 and the petitioner in the anticipatory bail application has not pleaded as to what he does for earning his living. It is submitted that it is a case of road robbery and in the confessional statement of Deepak, the name of the petitioner has transpired and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner at this stage, the petitioner may abscond.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is rejected.
(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T