Sanjan Kumar @ Sajan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.79725 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-177 Year-2025 Thana- SAMASTIPUR District- Samastipur ====================================================== Sanjan Kumar @ Sajan Kumar S/o- Baleshwar Rai R/o- Jitwarpur PSSamastipur Muffasil Distt-Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Madhav Kumar For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 08-12-2025 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State, Sri Chandra Bhushan Prasad. 2.

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Samastipur Town PS Case No. 177 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 four unknown accused on two motorcycles looted his trolley bag and registration number of one motorcycle was BR-33-6866, while registration number of other motorcycle was not visible.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR was against unknown and the name of the petitioner transpired

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.79725 of 2025(2) dt.08-12-2025 2/2 in the confessional statement of Ranjan in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value. It is reiterated and submitted that petitioner is a person with clean antecedent. 5.

Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that it is a case of road robbery and no doubt name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of Ranjan, but then at the instance of Ranjan, the articles were recovered from the house of coaccused Subhash Kumar, it is also submitted that since the looted articles were recovered at the instance of Ranjan, as such present is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. 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