IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18668 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-366 Year-2024 Thana- SITAMARHI District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Arjun @ Arjun Gupta @ Arjun Kumar S/O Baiju Sah R/O Village- Punaura, P.S- Punaura, Distt.- Sitamarhi. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ritesh Kumar Narain Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Braj Kishore Pd.(App) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 3 15-05-2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This application, for grant of anticipatory bail, arises out of Sitamarhi Police Station Case No. 366 of 2024, dated 14.06.2024, disclosing offences under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report, is that on 14.06.2024, at about 10:15 AM, three unknown miscreants with arms entered into the office of the informant, started assaulting him, demanded cash and looted cash worth Rs. 3,88,211/- from the office. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the First Information Report and he has falsely been implicated in the present case on Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18668 of 2025(3) dt.15-05-2025 2/3 the basis of confessional statement made by arrested accused Pranjal Kumar. He next submtis that the arrested co-accused Pranjal Kumar and the petitioner were only good friends. He next submits that no incriminating article has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner and/or from the house belonging to him. The petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that from persual of the case diary it transpires that the arrested co-accused Pranjal Kumar has disclosed that the looted money has been distributed among the co-accused persons, including the petitioner and co-accused Chandan Kumar, who is one of the employee of the company. He next submits that Chandan Kumar, in his confessional statement, has also supported the allegations alleged against the petitioner by the co-accused Pranjal Kumar. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the materials of record, including the case diary. 7. From perusal of the case diary, it transpires that the co- accused Pranjal Kumar and Chandan Kumar, in his confessional statement, has disclosed the name of the petitioner as their associate, therefore, the confessional Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18668 of 2025(3) dt.15-05-2025 3/3 statement of the co-accused Pranjal Kumar and Chandan Kumar may be the basis of further investigation against the petitioner. 8. Considering the aforesaid, I am not inclined to grant the petitioner privilege of anticipatory bail. 9. This application is, accordingly, rejected. ashwani/- (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) U