Saurav Kumar @ Saurav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.83768 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-116 Year-2023 Thana- SHASTRINAGAR District- Patna ====================================================== 1.

Saurav Kumar @ Saurav Son of Alok Kumar Singh R/o Village - Manjhopur, P.O. - Purauna, P.S. - Taraiya, District - Saran. 2.

Shivam Kumar @ Maxwel Son of Alok Kumar Singh R/o Village - Manjhopur, P.O. - Purauna, P.S. - Taraiya, District - Saran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Jha, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Kumar Veerendra Narayan, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 17-02-2026

1. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioners Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh and learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. The petitioners apprehend their arrest in connection with Shastri Nagar PS Case No. 116 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are persons with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that accused persons along with some unknown accused shot his grandson near a Chowmein shop leading to his death.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.83768 of 2025(2) dt.17-02-2026 2/2 that Anand Kumar Singh @ Anand had approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail by filing Cr. Misc No. 22117 of 2023 and the same came to be allowed by an order dated 11-7-2023 but then fairly submits that the case of the petitioners is not similar to the case of Anand as name of the petitioners transpired in the confessional statement of apprehended accused in police custody but then name of Anand was not disclosed in the confessional statement of apprehended accused. It is also fairly submitted that process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued.

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7. The anticipatory bail application of the petitioners is rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) amit/- U T