Sonu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.81449 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-448 Year-2024 Thana- SAMASTIPUR MUFFASIL DistrictSamastipur ====================================================== Sonu Kumar Son of Dashrath Ray Resident of Village- Harpur Nizamat, P.S.- Samastipur Muffasil, District- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Abhay Shanker Singh, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Jagdhar Prasad, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 12-01-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.

2. Petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 308(5), 303(2) and 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023 as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedents of two cases and the informant alleges that 4-5 unknown accused persons came at the construction site and looted cash, mobiles and keys of poclain and also fired 2-3 rounds in the air.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR is against unknown and the name of the petitioner

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.81449 of 2025(2) dt.12-01-2026 2/2 transpired during the course of investigation being purchaser of one of the stolen mobiles which was looted from the place of occurrence. It is submitted that petitioner was completely unaware that the mobile was a looted mobile.

5. Learned APP for the State opposes the anticipatory bail application by submitting that case is of committing loot at the place of occurrence and the petitioner was found in possession of the mobile which was looted from the place of occurrence and whether petitioner had purchased it or was involved in the loot is an aspect of investigation. It is also submitted that petitioner, in the event, if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond.

6. Considering the submissions made by learned APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is hereby rejected in connection with Samastipur Muffasil P.S. Case No.448 of 2024, pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M.-II, Samastipur. (Satyavrat Verma, J) Sanjay/- U T