Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 20503 (PAT)

Butan Kumar @ Santosh Kumar v. The State of Bihar

CR. MISC./13603/2025 · 2025-05-12

Satyavrat Verma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13603 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-132 Year-2019 Thana- JAHANABAD District- Jehanabad ====================================================== Butan Kumar @ Santosh Kumar S/O Wakil Sharma R/O- Raja Bazar, PS and Dist- Jahanabad ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Kunwar Digvijay Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Arun Kumar Pandey ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 3 12-05-2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner seeks bail in anticipation of his arrest in Jehanabad P. S. Case No.132 of 2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147,149,341,323,307,379 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and the informant alleges that unknown accused assaulted him when he protested as to why accused were urinating under new underpass and also snatched Rs. One Lac, golden chain, mobile etc. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.13603 of 2025(3) dt.12-05-2025 2/2 informant. It is further submitted that at the time of immersion of Goddess Saraswati, an altercation had taken place, as such, the informant falsely implicated the petitioner. 5. Learned A.P.P. opposes the anticipatory bail application and submits that petitioner is named in the FIR and the FIR is of the Year 2019 and petitioner at his leisure has moved in the Year 2025 for seeking anticipatory bail. 6. Considering the submissions made by the learned A.P.P. that petitioner after six years has approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail, the Court is not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. The prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail stands rejected. vikash/- (Satyavrat Verma, J) U T