Patna High CourtCR. MISC./4565/2026bail rejected

Vipin Sahani v. The State Of Bihar

2026-03-13Mr. Justice Satyavrat Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4565 of 2026 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-203 Year-2024 Thana- PIPRAKOTHI District- East Champaran ====================================================== Vipin Sahani S/o Badan Sahani R/o Village - Fursatpur, P.S - Muffasil, District - East Champaran At present R/o Village - Bairiya, P.S - Motihari, District - East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Madan Kumar, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-03-2026

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

2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Piprakothi P.S. Case No.203/2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 309(4) of the B.N.S., 2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has antecedent of four cases and the informant alleges that he was intercepted by three accused persons, who looted Rs.29,500/- from him and an accused aged about 21 years pointed pistol at him.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was against unknown and the name of the petitioner transpired in the confessional statement of Shiv Kumar in police

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4565 of 2026(2) dt.13-03-2026 2/2 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 it is a case of road robbery and the petitioner has antecedent of four cases and if privilege of anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, the petitioner may abscond or try to tamper with the evidence.

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