Patna High CourtCR. MISC./86299/2025bail rejected

Awadhesh Kumar @ Avdhesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

2026-01-21Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.86299 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-36 Year-2022 Thana- SONBERSA District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Awadhesh Kumar @ Avdhesh Kumar S/O Siman Ray Resident of VillageBasatpur, Ward No. 7, P.S- Sonbarsa, District- Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Shankar Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Md. Fahimuddin, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 21-01-2026

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

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Sonbarsa P.S. Case No. 36 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of one case and the informant alleges that while he was returning home along with his son, when they were intercepted by three unknown accused who looted Rs. 50,000/- from informant and his son after making firing.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR is against unknown and the name of the petitioner transpired during the course of investigation in the confessional statement

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.86299 of 2025(2) dt.21-01-2026 2/2 of Manish in police custody which does not have any evidentiary value

5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that it is a case of road robbery and petitioner has antecedent of one case, no doubt the name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of Manish, but then investigation of the case is in its nascent stages and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned APP for the State, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application stands rejected.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishabh/- U T