Jay Prakash Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.78733 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-480 Year-2022 Thana- BARH District- Patna ====================================================== Jay Prakash Kumar S/O Dularchand Yadav R/O Vill.- Chhaperatar, P.S.- Pandarak, Dist.- Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Kashyap For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Anuj Kumar Shrivastava ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 04-12-2025

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

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Barh P.S. Case No.480/2022, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 461,379 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant in sum and substance alleges that on 24.07.2022 some unknown thieves committed theft in his shop of the articles as detailed in the FIR.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was instituted against unknown. It is next submitted that the date of occurrence is 24.07.2022 and the FIR came to be instituted on 28.07.2022 i.e. after a delay of four days. It is also submitted that name of the petitioner transpired in the

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.78733 of 2025(2) dt.04-12-2025 2/2 confessional statement of apprehended accused Roshan and Gautam 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 the case is of the year 2022. It is also submitted that no doubt the name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of apprehended accused but then the looted articles were recovered from the apprehended accused as such the presence of the petitioner at the place of occurrence in committing the theft cannot be ruled out at this stage, when the investigation is still continuing. It is also submitted that police submitted charge sheet against apprehended accused under Section 461, 399 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 399 IPC carries punishment of 10 years.

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