Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 65016 (PAT)

Alok Kumar v. The State of Bihar

CR. MISC./52955/2025 · 2025-08-27

Nawneet Kumar Pandey

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52955 of 2025 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-357 Year-2024 Thana- PIPRA District- East Champaran ====================================================== Alok Kumar S/o- Laxmi Narayan Soni Village- Rasmandal Ps- Pipra Dist- East Champaran ... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar Bihar ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sunil Kumar No.Iii, Adv. For the State : Mr.Shailendra Kumar, APP For the Informant : Mr.Krishna Kant Singh, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER 2 27-08-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State. 2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with Pipra P.S. Case No. 357 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 137, 140(1), 140(3), 103(1), 238 and 61 of BNS. 3. According to FIR, co-accused Kundan Kumar, Lavkush Kumar, Bappi Kumar, Sanjay Bhagat and Golu Kumar came to the door of the informant and they took her son with them. Thereafter, her son could not be traced out. It has further been alleged that co-accused Binod Prasad and Krishna Mahto are involved in kidnapping of the victim. Later on, the dead body of her son was recovered. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.52955 of 2025(2) dt.27-08-2025 2/2 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. He is not named in the FIR. He is a person of clean antecedent and during investigation, nothing emerged against him. 5. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State and the learned counsel for the informant have opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the complicity of the petitioner has transpired in the confessional statement of co- accused Golu Kumar. 6. Considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I do not think it to be an appropriate case for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, it is rejected. kundan/- (Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J) U T